Is Firefox OK?

Mozilla’s privacy-heavy browser is flatlining but still crucial to future of the web.

Read the whole story

 

[maverick]

So what are the current options for a web browser that is:

1) Secure
2) Privacy focused
3) Not a resource hog
4) Compatible with most websites
5) Not involved in crypto bullshit?

 

[eivinds]

FireFox has two great features that Chrome doesn't have.

The Multi-Account Containers plugin is great if you, say, need to switch between multiple Azure accounts.
And bookmarks (remember those?) are way better in FireFox.

A few years ago I went back to FireFox after noticing it used half the memory Chrome did for my usage. These days memory is cheap and I use both, and don't really know if one uses less resources than the other.

 

[AsiaHeartman]

Well, now that I know that Mozilla is partnering up with FACEBOOK and DISNEY I will definitely leave it behind. I'm thinking of using tor or something.

 

[doalwa]

I've been using Firefox before it even was version 1.x, and I still am. There was a certain time when multithreading became increasingly important, and Firefox took quite long to adapt (I think around 2012...2014). But it has. It is quick, reliable, it can be extended the way I want, and I can really only recommend it to others as the better alternative. Even Mac users (I use it there, too) should think of it as the better alternative to Safari, which is nowadays called "the IE of Apple".
I personally also cannot trust a browser that is made by an ad and search giant. That is too many interests put into one place.
I donate to Mozilla on a regular basis. You don't need to do this, but you should really try out Firefox - maybe even again, if you dropped it some time ago.

One easy way to donate something to Mozilla, even if you do not use it, is to use amazon smile, and set the donations to Mozilla Foundation.

Sorry, but any org able to lay off 250 people while still paying its CEO 3 million friggin dollars a year does not need my money.

 

[XSportSeeker]

I'm using Brave and Firefox currently, mostly because I don't want a single browser engine monopoly scenario, particularly Chromium.

I know it's open source, I know it could always be forked if Google started messing with it, but Google has it's claws too close to the thing for me to be comfortable with.
It's kinda like Android you know... yes, we have AOSP, but you see the degree Google intrudes on the entire thing to a point it becomes almost impossible for a regular user or group of dedicated devs to clean it up from Google crap. They purposely make it hard for you to get rid of Google crap, plus all the other junk they sell rights to be pre/permanently installed there, because profit. And so you cannot trust a company that acts like that not to do the exact same thing with a browser engine they also so closely develop.

Now, I don't mind Firefox having the smallest share of the market, as long as they can keep going.
I fully understand how the mainstream will not, cannot for the sake of their lives care about privacy and security, cannot be bothered with convenience points being taken away for the sake of not having their personal and private data hoovered by tech giants, will always refuse to switch apps, platforms or whatever because of privacy violations, and will keep marching towards the zero privacy future. I am tired of knowing that. I have tried convincing people to switch from inherently insecure and privacy eroding platforms for ages now, I just don't have the energy for it anymore.

I just want for options to still be there when the house of cards fall. It's like we're fine with criticizing other countries for eliminating citizen privacy via government, but we couldn't give two sh*ts about privacy when it's tech giants taking it away for profit.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with the Firefox guy there... I don't have many hopes of Firefox recovering it's past position. And they tried several things that I thought could get more attention, but it just didn't.
Some stuff was boneheaded sure, but not all. Mozilla developed a whole lot of stuff people were asking for, particularly people worried with privacy, but it did not move the needle. I see lots of people complaining about all sorts of things regarding Firefox, but it has been this way like forever now... Firefox does something that people like, no one says anything, and no one switches because it's not enough for them to move. Firefox does something that is not great, but they have to try because they are running out of funds, everyone and their mom comes out of the woodwork to sh*t on them. In a hostile environment like that, how can it ever recover?

I just hope Mozilla is able to work out some sort of Signal-like deal to keep going... we cannot end up with one more thing that is completely owned by tech giants. Don't we have enough awareness that this is not a healthy environment for anyone?

 

[tjukken]

I'm using Brave and Firefox currently, mostly because I don't want a single browser engine monopoly scenario, particularly Chromium.

I know it's open source, I know it could always be forked if Google started messing with it, but Google has it's claws too close to the thing for me to be comfortable with.
It's kinda like Android you know... yes, we have AOSP, but you see the degree Google intrudes on the entire thing to a point it becomes almost impossible for a regular user or group of dedicated devs to clean it up from Google crap. They purposely make it hard for you to get rid of Google crap, plus all the other junk they sell rights to be pre/permanently installed there, because profit. And so you cannot trust a company that acts like that not to do the exact same thing with a browser engine they also so closely develop.

Now, I don't mind Firefox having the smallest share of the market, as long as they can keep going.
I fully understand how the mainstream will not, cannot for the sake of their lives care about privacy and security, cannot be bothered with convenience points being taken away for the sake of not having their personal and private data hoovered by tech giants, will always refuse to switch apps, platforms or whatever because of privacy violations, and will keep marching towards the zero privacy future. I am tired of knowing that. I have tried convincing people to switch from inherently insecure and privacy eroding platforms for ages now, I just don't have the energy for it anymore.

I just want for options to still be there when the house of cards fall. It's like we're fine with criticizing other countries for eliminating citizen privacy via government, but we couldn't give two sh*ts about privacy when it's tech giants taking it away for profit.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with the Firefox guy there... I don't have many hopes of Firefox recovering it's past position. And they tried several things that I thought could get more attention, but it just didn't.
Some stuff was boneheaded sure, but not all. Mozilla developed a whole lot of stuff people were asking for, particularly people worried with privacy, but it did not move the needle. I see lots of people complaining about all sorts of things regarding Firefox, but it has been this way like forever now... Firefox does something that people like, no one says anything, and no one switches because it's not enough for them to move. Firefox does something that is not great, but they have to try because they are running out of funds, everyone and their mom comes out of the woodwork to sh*t on them. In a hostile environment like that, how can it ever recover?

I just hope Mozilla is able to work out some sort of Signal-like deal to keep going... we cannot end up with one more thing that is completely owned by tech giants. Don't we have enough awareness that this is not a healthy environment for anyone?

I think you've answered your own question..

 

[Frosty Grin]

So the reported amount that Google pays Mozilla is at least 80% of Mozilla's total revenue. And the value of what Google gets for that money has dropped at least 10% since the deal was last negotiated in 2020. If Google simply cut the payment by 10%, that would be 8% of Mozilla's operating revenue.

That money also hobbles Firefox. They should be out there blasting Google's FLoC replacement and actively pitching themselves as a more private alternative, but it sure doesn't seem like a good time to bite the hand that feeds them.

I think there's a more important issue here: the audience for a "more private" alternative is probably pretty small. Many people don't care about privacy, while the people who care tend to want "private", not "more private". Hence the disdain at Mozilla's collaboration with Meta - which could make advertising "more private".

 

[Dietz]

I used Firefox since it was called Firebird, started with version 0.78, waay back in 1999. Used it until Mozilla fired Brendan Eich. I dropped them instantly and have never gone back. I used PaleMoon for years, until they broke Firefox add on compatibility, so now I use Waterfox. I have never, and will never, use Chrome in any version or form whatsoever; Google is absolutely evil, and consequently Chrome is banned from my systems.

 

[wolfigor]

While I understand why a lot of consumers have dropped Firefox for Chrome as Android took off, I think there's another really big reason Chrome is so dominant. They provide .admx files which allows businesses with a Windows ADDS environment to manage Chrome and it's configuration in a very granular way. I remember pushing it hard as a sysadmin because it was a realistic alternate to IE we could centrally manage. That's the sort of thing that, because of privacy concerns nowadays, Mozilla could use to displace significant market share with privacy-conscious businesses. There needs to be a comparable "Firefox for Work" sort of option that can be centrally managed.

Agreed. At least for enterprise use cases -- and browsers are, for better or for worse, essential in a business environment. Firefox requires keeping it on it separate ESR update channel, and managing it well doesn't fit as neatly within typical AD management tools. The Chrome+IE model has been a mainstay for some time in the enterprise world.

At least until Chromium-based Edge came along...

Microsoft's Chromium-derived browser has become a no-brainer for ease of manageability and integration with Office 365/AzureAD. At this point, I'm seeing a trend toward O365+Edge and Google Workspace (G Suite)+Chrome as the typical choices. Firefox is losing relevance in the business space except for applications that depend on it.

Yup - our company blocked Firefox over a year ago and uninstalled it from every computer because they couldn’t manage it (too much risk to mitigate with no “reward” and we are trying to get HITRUST certification). Soon they are going to block chrome and push everyone to edge because of the additional management features there. I’m sister tons of other companies are in the same boat (at least when it comes to Firefox).

I have a question: would make sense for enterprises to enable an adblock by default for all websites outside the intranet?

 

[Jiggers]

4% market share, It's Dead Jim.

"The main thing with Firefox is how extensible it..." WAS

Used to have thousands of excellent plugins, now just a handful and still declining.

 

[tjukken]

I used Firefox since it was called Firebird, started with version 0.78, waay back in 1999. Used it until Mozilla fired Brendan Eich. I dropped them instantly and have never gone back. I used PaleMoon for years, until they broke Firefox add on compatibility, so now I use Waterfox. I have never, and will never, use Chrome in any version or form whatsoever; Google is absolutely evil, and consequently Chrome is banned from my systems.

Why do people care about this Eich character? He seems to just be another bigot that thinks other people's happiness infringes on his own. God forbid gay people be allowed to marry /s. I swear, these people would stone gays if they could get away with it. And that's the guy you're rooting for?

 

[Carewolf]

So what are the current options for a web browser that is:

1) Secure
2) Privacy focused
3) Not a resource hog
4) Compatible with most websites
5) Not involved in crypto bullshit?

You can at most get three.

 

[bbgun06]

Can we conclude that mostly only tech-savy people care about online privacy, and not the general public?

I get the impression that privacy gets a lot of attention due to the vocal minority. Seems that most people don't care, or atleast not as much to give up practicality and browser speed (which chrome is very good at).

99% of users simply use the default browser that came preinstalled on their device. They don't want or care for options.
Firefox gained market share when it was competing against IE. People loved to hate IE, and that made the effort of switching to Firefox worthwhile.

iOS users have always been content with Safari, and once Chrome became the default on Android, Firefox's days were numbered.

 

[wattsvilleblues]

Mozilla has also been focusing on partnerships, including recently working with Facebook parent company Meta to push for more privacy-focused advertising.

(cough...cough)

Book a PCR

 

[Deleted member 827803]

4% market share, It's Dead Jim.

"The main thing with Firefox is how extensible it..." WAS

Used to have thousands of excellent plugins, now just a handful and still declining.

I see this a lot - what extensions do you miss / are generally missed ?

I have privacybadger/ublock, an RSS reader, and a link for zotero. What else were you / people using that they're so hacked off about ?

I've used firefox religiously for years, and I used to use Opera before they went Chrome. No problems with it on anything from beige windows boxes to my new M1 mac.

 

[Kjella]

Why do people care about this Eich character? He seems to just be another bigot that thinks other people's happiness infringes on his own. God forbid gay people be allowed to marry /s. I swear, these people would stone gays if they could get away with it. And that's the guy you're rooting for?

He'd been with the Firefox project for 16 years rising through the ranks, including many years as CTO and apparently nobody had seen any issue with his work performance or found him unsuitable for leadership positions before that. If there was anyone who knew the ins and outs of Firefox and could restore focus on the core project he was probably it.

Then he got appointed CEO, the Internet flipped over him and 7 million other Californians supporting a same-sex marriage ban so the board kicked him out. Or well he was asked to step down, but the way nobody had his back he chose to leave. Seriously, 41% of the registered voters in California voted with Eich. It was a political assassination.

I'll refrain from making too many allegations/accusations against Mozilla because I think they mainly felt they were in the middle of a shit storm and was looking for the easiest way out, but for a lot of people that was the final proof of what their priorities were. And that getting back to producing a good product was not one of them...

 

[EvolvedMonkey]

Mozilla corporation and its executive awards are sadly not atypical of many charitable and ostensibly non- profit organisations today. The excuse is “that’s what the market rate is for executives at big organisations so I should get that”, while picking and choosing the comparisons used for that metric. Strangely when they downsize they never re-calculate to suit.

The only thing left now is for Mozilla to die, and allow something new without its institutional failings to take its place.

 

[SeanJW]

Every one of the answers saying how to "improve" Firefox by "turn this buried setting on" or "install this plugin"? You're in a different world that doesn't help. End-users don't do that. End-users just want things to work. That's why things like tracking blocking get integrated rather than "just install this plug in" (which has always been an option).

That's why Firefox has been simplifying and tweaking the interface - they have to from one perspective. Whether they're right or not in their choices doesn't matter though, as the other thing it does is destroy any USP. End-users also want their browsers to be invisible. They're not using it to play with the browser, they just want to access their sites. So if what they have as default works well enough, they're done. Firefox has nothing to wedge its way back into the market.

If they're not attractive to end-users directly, what's left? Being enterprise friendly. The corporate policy that can say "suck it, you'll use it and like it" to end-user preferences. And that's something they've never been. At best they're enterprise indifferent, at worst, they're actively hostile.

 

[J.King]

Why do people care about this Eich character? He seems to just be another bigot that thinks other people's happiness infringes on his own. God forbid gay people be allowed to marry /s. I swear, these people would stone gays if they could get away with it. And that's the guy you're rooting for?

He'd been with the Firefox project for 16 years rising through the ranks, including many years as CTO and apparently nobody had seen any issue with his work performance or found him unsuitable for leadership positions before that. If there was anyone who knew the ins and outs of Firefox and could restore focus on the core project he was probably it.

That you're okay with X when you don't know all the facts doesn't mean you must later still be okay with X when you learn more.

Then he got appointed CEO, the Internet flipped over him and 7 million other Californians supporting a same-sex marriage ban so the board kicked him out. Or well he was asked to step down, but the way nobody had his back he chose to leave. Seriously, 41% of the registered voters in California voted with Eich. It was a political assassination.

41% of Californians are not CEOs of major corporations. In any case, that he was one among millions doesn't make it right.

I'll refrain from making too many allegations/accusations against Mozilla because I think they mainly felt they were in the middle of a shit storm and was looking for the easiest way out, but for a lot of people that was the final proof of what their priorities were. And that getting back to producing a good product was not one of them...

Having leadership one can be comfortable with should always be a priority, I would think.

 

[tjukken]

Why do people care about this Eich character? He seems to just be another bigot that thinks other people's happiness infringes on his own. God forbid gay people be allowed to marry /s. I swear, these people would stone gays if they could get away with it. And that's the guy you're rooting for?

He'd been with the Firefox project for 16 years rising through the ranks, including many years as CTO and apparently nobody had seen any issue with his work performance or found him unsuitable for leadership positions before that. If there was anyone who knew the ins and outs of Firefox and could restore focus on the core project he was probably it.

Then he got appointed CEO, the Internet flipped over him and 7 million other Californians supporting a same-sex marriage ban so the board kicked him out. Or well he was asked to step down, but the way nobody had his back he chose to leave. Seriously, 41% of the registered voters in California voted with Eich. It was a political assassination.

I'll refrain from making too many allegations/accusations against Mozilla because I think they mainly felt they were in the middle of a shit storm and was looking for the easiest way out, but for a lot of people that was the final proof of what their priorities were. And that getting back to producing a good product was not one of them...

He was a stain on their reputation, so they removed him. That's sound business strategy. Nothing more.

 

[vershner]

I used Firefox since it was called Firebird, started with version 0.78, waay back in 1999. Used it until Mozilla fired Brendan Eich. I dropped them instantly and have never gone back. I used PaleMoon for years, until they broke Firefox add on compatibility, so now I use Waterfox. I have never, and will never, use Chrome in any version or form whatsoever; Google is absolutely evil, and consequently Chrome is banned from my systems.

Why do people care about this Eich character? He seems to just be another bigot that thinks other people's happiness infringes on his own. God forbid gay people be allowed to marry /s. I swear, these people would stone gays if they could get away with it. And that's the guy you're rooting for?

The fall of Eich coincided with the start of the fall of Firefox, so people assume that it was the cause. Now, correlation does not equal causation, but it's quite clear that the people now running Mozilla have no idea what made it popular in the first place. There was a notable change in the tone of messages coming from Mozilla post-Eich, with the emphasis on vague political ideas like "privacy" and "freedom", rather than specific technical changes.

Also, some people simply don't care about the political leanings of a CEO, as long as it doesn't affect the product. Firefox worked just fine before you knew the CEO was an arsehole, and it'll keep working just fine afterwards.

 

[filekutter]

I was using Netscape back in the day, and am truly happy with Firefox. I use Vivaldi on my phone, but I don't use my phone much for browsing, that's my computer's function.
And Chrome, well to me that's the ugliest, piece of garbage around. Plus, its owned by Google. That's enough to make me mask up when going into a computer store. Period. I don't know why people will glom
onto the feet of the "man", which is what Google has become. They know they have no right to say... "do no evil", and they don't care. They just want money, power, and control.
Firefox, you are pretty awesome, stay alive.

 

[FlyoverLand]

I've been using Firefox since the beginning. Before that Netscape. I really don't care to be more involved in the google verse than I have to.

It is my main browser on android phone/tablet and the desktop. If something doesn't work, I'll fire up Chrome to get it done. I'm warming to Edge as it has vertical tabs, something that I use Tree Style in FF to get and just have to have. I also can load ublock. I just don't trust Microsoft that much either so I try to stay in FF.

The UI change on FF android around version 68 has me keeping my phone at that level and updating my tablet to what is current to see if they ever get it back to the way I liked it.

Since I contribute financially to Mozilla, they send me email, some that to me seems political and left of me. Perhaps their board needs some political diversity.

 

[entropy_wins]

I went back to using Firefox after years on Chromium, mostly for three reasons:
1) Chromium became such a resource hog that it became unbearable
2) even though being such a resource hog, FF outperforms it on page loading
3) Google ended the user data sync on Chromium, so my phone and my desktop became disconnected

Additionally, Canonical decided it's a good idea to only provide Chromium as a snap package, so no more standalone web apps out of the box. Fantastic.

I am fine with the new UI of FF, I actually like it. Yet there are several decisions by Mozilla which I just can't understand. Native web apps? Nah, we gonna cut it. Then there was this super neat tab groups feature, which let you organise your tabs in separate "realms" in the background, so you could only bring up the tabs you needed at the moment, while pushing the others to the background. Naaaah, cut it.

FF on Android is unusable for me, and of course it would be nice to keep my phone and desktop in sync, but the Android app is an abomination. I really don't understand where FF is going, but I am glad to have an alternative to all the Chromium-based browsers out there. It actually leaves me a bit concerned about what might be going on in the next couple of years, IF there still will be a stable Firefox with a proper development team working on user requirements.

I still use Firefox but you are *spot on*.

I suppose, at least tab syncing on mobile still works, and they have native "sandbox tabs" which is a nice feature to.

I am reviewing an HTML display for a genetics project, and I used both chromium and firefox - both display fine. But when I went to print/save pdf, chrome doesn't understand images and puts page breaks across a plot.

I was nicely surprised, firefox formatted the page properly so all images are correct.

TLDR; Firefox is needed for diversity in browser space, because chrome is not everything, but needs to focus...

S

 

[judas6000]

Personally I find the Temporary Containers extension for Firefox absolutely invaluable, and can't find anything that works in the same way for the raft of Chromium based browsers out there.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

I ask the Eich supporters: if it came out that Eich was a staunch segregationist, would you still bitch about his removal?

 

[HomersGhost]

I switched to Firefox from Chrome a few years ago and I'm never going back. I don't run ad blockers but I used Firefox's privacy tools at the highest level to prevent cross-site tracking. Going back to Chrome for certain sites (hard to believe this is still a thing) - I'm astounded at the aggressiveness of the ads.

But ... the real Firefox killer feature for me is the native video player. I love that I can just pop out any video and put it in the lower corner of my screen or move it anywhere or resize it. It always stays on top of my screen. All without extensions.

It's a shame Mozilla lost its way, but they are resilient. And if there's anything I've learned in the past twenty years watching the web unfold is that things change fast. Chrome may be the undisputed king for now, but the web has a graveyard of deposed kings.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

I ask the Eich supporters: if it came out that Eich was a staunch segregationist, would you still bitch about his removal?

I ask the Eich opponents: do you hate, for example, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as much? Both didn't support marriage equality when first running for president. They were publicly running on bigotry. How come is Eich the only one being defined by his past stance on marriage equality?

1) It's his current stance too.
2) Obama's thinking on same-sex marriages evolved over nearly 20 years, including his time before seeking and attaining the presidency. And while he didn't support same-sex marriage in his presidential campaigning, he admitted his thinking was evolving and he was open to the possibility that it was the wrong position, especially for a leader. All the while he did support anti-hate crime laws and by the middle of his first term he's already repealing the ban serving in the military openly, and instructing the DoJ to stop defending DOMA in court. By the end of his first term he's declaring support for same-sex marriage. Obama took time to come around but while he did that he was never actively removing legal civil rights from LGBTQ+ people like Prop 8 would have done.

Compare that with a leader like Eich, who never seemed to question the cruelty or correctness of his beliefs and, rather than evolve his thinking when he was put in a position to lead people that it affected, decided he'd rather not lead than change his mind.

So I've answered your question, now how about mine? If Eich were a racial segregationist would you still defend him?

 

[Frosty Grin]

And if there's anything I've learned in the past twenty years watching the web unfold is that things change fast. Chrome may be the undisputed king for now, but the web has a graveyard of deposed kings.

Uhm... the issue here is more that, chances are, the new king will be as big and ruthless as the old one. Or worse. Mozilla was more of an exception with Firefox.

 

[HomersGhost]

And if there's anything I've learned in the past twenty years watching the web unfold is that things change fast. Chrome may be the undisputed king for now, but the web has a graveyard of deposed kings.

Uhm... the issue here is more that, chances are, the new king will be as big and ruthless as the old one. Or worse. Mozilla was more of an exception with Firefox.

That was Microsoft back in the day. When Netscape was dominant, IE was the scrappy contender. I remember really liking IE because if you forgot to close a table tag in HTML, it wouldn't render a blank page. IE would at least try to show the content whereas Netscape showed nothing. Debugging pages in Netscape was a nightmare.

Then - Netscape crashed and burned and MS won --- and then did .... nothing. The web was frozen in time for years. MS could hardly give a crap so we were forced to build sites for a browser with severe CSS display bugs.

I don't think it will be that bad again but you never know. That said, I wish Firefox the best. They've been in this position before but they seem to thrive with their back against the wall.

 

[Frosty Grin]

2) Obama's thinking on same-sex marriages evolved over nearly 20 years, including his time before seeking and attaining the presidency. And while he didn't support same-sex marriage in his presidential campaigning, he admitted his thinking was evolving and he was open to the possibility that it was the wrong position, especially for a leader.

So he was running on bigotry and waffling. I'm sorry, it takes partisan thinking to see this waffling as a positive.

by the middle of his first term he's already repealing the ban serving in the military openly

Under pressure from ongoing court cases, while even majority of Republican voters didn't mind, with no recourse even for the people discharged on his watch and no anti-discrimination measures. I was paying attention back then, so I'd say he was doing the least he could. And this isn't gay marriage, by the way, so it's utterly irrelevant. Eich might have been supporting gays in the military too.

Compare that with a leader like Eich, who never seemed to question the cruelty or correctness of his beliefs and, rather than evolve his thinking when he was put in a position to lead people that it affected, decided he'd rather not lead than change his mind.

I'd say a leader should have principles. When you do what's convenient, that's not evolution.

So I've answered your question, now how about mine? If Eich were a racial segregationist would you still defend him?

If the majority of people in probably the most liberal state were racial segregationists too, I wouldn't hold it against Eich personally either. When prejudice is widespread, I'd say what matters is how you do your job. So if you bake cakes, you bake them for gay couples and interracial couples. If you make browsers, you make browsers everyone can use. As a CEO, you aren't supposed to make public statements against people, but Eich wasn't doing that.

 

[kvndoom]

Prefer FF on ios & android. No hassle sync
These 2 years FF to download YouTube classes had been a big lifeline for homeschooling. Yes there is an offline YT mode, but it's still not a hassle

You can also download YouTube videos on Android with the Newpipe app available through F-droid. An added bonus is that it bypasses ads when you watch vids.

 

[Velvet G]

FF is my go to for desktop usage but it was so sluggish to me on my Android devices. I went Chrome and when I got my S20+, I gave Samsung Internet a chance and honestly there was no looking back after that. Hell, I wish they made a desktop version of it but I'll happily use FF on my PC.

I only have four add-ons installed and my PC is loaded enough that even if it is a resource hog, it handles everything very quickly.

 

[arcite]

So many complaining in here about UI changes they don't like.

Firefox has always had Advanced Settings; tweak to your desire.

Then there are the plugins, choose from the dozens of well maintained offerings (careful to avoid the sketchy ones).

If you really want to avoid any issues with memory leaks or UI kerfuffles; use FF Extended Support Release

Life is short, use the browser you like. FF is still great.

 

[VividVerism]

Have you not tried Palemoon? I use that on Linux and Windows. It's pretty much Firefox from 10 years ago as far as the GUI is concerned.

Also as far as the codebase is concerned.

Someone mentioned a single person was maintaining it for a while.

The information security professional in me is terrified of the thought of 10-year-old browser code with a single maintainer, in the best case.

The fact that the browser exists because a bunch of users had a tantrum over the removal of features that were holding back security improvements, so they forked to keep the insecure architecture in place, just makes it even worse.

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Waterfox started life long ago as a 64-bit version of FF. In fact, the first 64-bit version, long, long ago (2011). It doesn't exist because somebody threw a a "tantrum". It keeps the old extension system because that's what the users, overwhelmingly, wanted. They tried a non-XUL version of Waterfox; nobody was interested (might as well use regular FF then).

Also, the attitude of "throwing a tantrum" when Mozilla heavily deprecated customization, and then blamed add-on users for not updating to XML, when basic XML at that point wasn't even half finished... No. Mozilla's attitude and behaviour when deprecating XUL and switching to XML was horrible. "XML isn't even half finished, but it's add-on developers fault for not updating to it, despite it not being possible for most to do so yet".

I will admit I was mistaken about why PaleMoon was created. I had never heard of it, and never seen it promoted, until the XUL deprecation. And when I started seeing it promoted, it was specifically because it supported XUL. I made assumptions that are apparently false.

I stand by the rest of what I said. I would amend it only to say PaleMoon is only popular because it kept an insecure architecture in place.

And yes, I'd call it a tantrum. It's "you can pry Windows XP from my cold dead fingers" all over again. The look of a lot of things has changed, some features are new, some you liked have gone away, and you can't muck around in system folders with no restrictions anymore. There are VERY good reasons to MOVE ON.

I have more sympathy for the extension devs. But some extensions really should not be possible, for good reasons. Others had ample opportunity and plenty of warning (with multiple deadline extensions) and did not put in enough work to update their code. Others simply abandoned their code long before and it's a miracle it was still working at all. Mozilla worked with extension devs and users for a very extended period to find shortcomings, provide shims, etc. A good number of extensions (or even classes of extension) in the end died anyway. And that does suck. But a great deal also made it through the process in the end with mostly equivalent functionality. I held off upgrading for a release or two until most of my essentials had a replacement. In some cases (Tree Style Tabs for example) the replacement didn't work quite as well. But it wasn't the global extension Armageddon everyone makes it out to be.

 

[tjukken]

Have you not tried Palemoon? I use that on Linux and Windows. It's pretty much Firefox from 10 years ago as far as the GUI is concerned.

Also as far as the codebase is concerned.

Someone mentioned a single person was maintaining it for a while.

The information security professional in me is terrified of the thought of 10-year-old browser code with a single maintainer, in the best case.

The fact that the browser exists because a bunch of users had a tantrum over the removal of features that were holding back security improvements, so they forked to keep the insecure architecture in place, just makes it even worse.

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Waterfox started life long ago as a 64-bit version of FF. In fact, the first 64-bit version, long, long ago (2011). It doesn't exist because somebody threw a a "tantrum". It keeps the old extension system because that's what the users, overwhelmingly, wanted. They tried a non-XUL version of Waterfox; nobody was interested (might as well use regular FF then).

Also, the attitude of "throwing a tantrum" when Mozilla heavily deprecated customization, and then blamed add-on users for not updating to XML, when basic XML at that point wasn't even half finished... No. Mozilla's attitude and behaviour when deprecating XUL and switching to XML was horrible. "XML isn't even half finished, but it's add-on developers fault for not updating to it, despite it not being possible for most to do so yet".

I will admit I was mistaken about why PaleMoon was created. I had never heard of it, an never seen it promoted, until the XUL deprecation. And when I started seeing it promoted, it was specifically because it supported XUL. I made assumptions that are apparently false.

I stand by the rest of what I said. I would amend it only to say PaleMoon is only popular because it kept an insecure architecture in place.

And yes, I'd call it a tantrum. It's "you can pry Windows XP from my cold dead fingers" all over again. The look of a lot of things has changed, some features are new, some you liked have gone away, and you can't muck around in system folders with no restrictions anymore. There are VERY good reasons to MOVE ON.

I have more sympathy for the extension devs. But some extensions really should not be possible, for good reasons.

That's just your opinion. A lot of Firefox users just didn't care about security, as Mozilla themselves discovered. They were willing to live with the danger, to keep all that functionality XUL provided.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

2) Obama's thinking on same-sex marriages evolved over nearly 20 years, including his time before seeking and attaining the presidency. And while he didn't support same-sex marriage in his presidential campaigning, he admitted his thinking was evolving and he was open to the possibility that it was the wrong position, especially for a leader.

So he was running on bigotry and waffling. I'm sorry, it takes partisan thinking to see this waffling as a positive.

So right out of the gate you're assuming Obama was essentially lying. And you give Eich more credit for being an open bigot that worked to hurt people than Obama for "lying" while working to protect the civil rights of minorities, just not as hard was some would have liked.
Says a lot about you.

Under pressure from ongoing court cases, while even majority of Republican voters didn't mind, with no recourse even for the people discharged on his watch and no anti-discrimination measures. I was paying attention back then, so I'd say he was doing the least he could. And this isn't gay marriage, by the way, so it's utterly irrelevant. Eich might have been supporting gays in the military too.

All of this is your baseless speculation about motives that 1) run absolutely contrary to Obama's open statements and policy positions, and 2) give Eich the benefit of the doubt based on absolutely nothing; no statements, no policies, and contrary to his known politics. So in your argument, Obama = must be presumed to secretly be bad, Eich = could secretly be good.
Says a lot about you.

Also, you're framing this strictly around the question of gay marriage and intentionally ignoring other ways in which Obama championed civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ Americans. You say it's irrelevant, I say it isn't. When you asked how people could support Obama but not Eich, you don't get to turn around and say "Okay but that other stuff you mentioned shouldn't matter." It does. Especially when the person he ran against, George W. Bush, actively lobbied to amend the national Constitution to ban same-sex marriage just as Eich lobbied to end it in California. Obama never supported such a ban, even if he himself didn't believe in the institution and advocated non-marriage legal alternatives. In fact, he publicly opposed banning the practice. There's a difference between trying to prevent something from ever happening and from trying to find other ways around the issue. Especially when we consider the other context, that Obama supported many other civil rights for LGBTQ+ people despite his initial resistance to endorsing marriage.

Abraham Lincoln was a racist who did not believe in his heart that Black and White people were on the same level, but he still gets deserved recognition for emancipating the slaves in war and pushing for the complete abolition of slavery and protection of Black civil rights after it. Obama may not have originally believed in marriage equality but he fought and achieved victories for LGBTQ+ civil rights even before his apparent change of heart on marriage.

And despite your cynicism, there is every indication that his change of heart was and continues to be genuine. We have no indication that Eich has changed his mind in the intervening 8 years. Who deserves the benefit of the doubt?

I'd say a leader should have principles. When you do what's convenient, that's not evolution.

So you'd rather a leader actively harm minorities to remain consistent with their (supposed) principles than (in your view) cynically help them by advocating for their equality. Real harm is better if it's from an honestly held opinion than real help, which is bad if it's political.
Says a lot about you.

So I've answered your question, now how about mine? If Eich were a racial segregationist would you still defend him?

If the majority of people in probably the most liberal state were racial segregationists too, I wouldn't hold it against Eich personally either.

Nah, we absolutely can. First of all, the pre-polling data showed most people in California were against Prop 8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8#Pre-decision_opinion_polls
Second, consider the positions on their merits. The arguments in favor of Abolition and against the cruelty of slavery were the same whether they showed up in free or slave states; do we give Southerners a pass on their refusal to consider the Abolitionist arguments just because they were unpopular with the people around them? "Well that's just how they were raised," or "Well that's what all their peers thought..." This doesn't let people off the hook. We can absolutely hold them accountable for dismissing the case for Abolition. We can hold Germans accountable for supporting anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany.
We don't need to reserve judgement because "the standards of the day..." when the arguments that mirror our current consensus were well-represented in those times, too. People choosing not to hear or consider them should not excuse them.

When prejudice is widespread, I'd say what matters is how you do your job.

His stance on civil rights materially affected the people who were working for him or contributing to the project. Unlike Obama, he showed no inclination (politically motivated or otherwise) to evolve his position towards respecting or defending their rights of the people he worked with. Unlike Obama, we don't have any record of him trying to advocate for gay rights in other ways.

So all-in-all, I find your construction to be a completely false equivalence. And furthermore I take your reply as an admission that you believe it's okay to be a bigot if being a bigot is popular where you live. So to sum up: Yes, you would defend Eich's bigotry if it were race-based instead of sexuality-based. Based on the rest of your reply, we can safely conclude you would also believe that cynically supporting and enacting civil rights protections for racial minorities is wrong if the politician enacting them is "only" doing it for political gain, that politicians whose policies align with their bigotry are somehow morally superior.

 

[adipose]

2) Obama's thinking on same-sex marriages evolved over nearly 20 years, including his time before seeking and attaining the presidency. And while he didn't support same-sex marriage in his presidential campaigning, he admitted his thinking was evolving and he was open to the possibility that it was the wrong position, especially for a leader.

So he was running on bigotry and waffling. I'm sorry, it takes partisan thinking to see this waffling as a positive.

by the middle of his first term he's already repealing the ban serving in the military openly

Under pressure from ongoing court cases, while even majority of Republican voters didn't mind, with no recourse even for the people discharged on his watch and no anti-discrimination measures. I was paying attention back then, so I'd say he was doing the least he could. And this isn't gay marriage, by the way, so it's utterly irrelevant. Eich might have been supporting gays in the military too.

Compare that with a leader like Eich, who never seemed to question the cruelty or correctness of his beliefs and, rather than evolve his thinking when he was put in a position to lead people that it affected, decided he'd rather not lead than change his mind.

I'd say a leader should have principles. When you do what's convenient, that's not evolution.

So I've answered your question, now how about mine? If Eich were a racial segregationist would you still defend him?

If the majority of people in probably the most liberal state were racial segregationists too, I wouldn't hold it against Eich personally either. When prejudice is widespread, I'd say what matters is how you do your job. So if you bake cakes, you bake them for gay couples and interracial couples. If you make browsers, you make browsers everyone can use. As a CEO, you aren't supposed to make public statements against people, but Eich wasn't doing that.

Mozilla just voted with their wallet. That's the libertarian way.

Voting for something and paying for the campaign are different. When you vote, you may not be informed, care much, or are just making a 50/50 choice without leaning too far one way or another. When you donate, you are paying to convinces others of your position, because you are so certain it's right you are willing to sacrifice to advance it.

Even if half the state agreed, it's at least partially due to extremely misleading ads run by the backers, which he helped pay for. So, he's simply not in the same camp. Of course he is certainly allowed to change his position, issue a mea culpa, and support rights for all. Maybe it would have even made a difference. But he didn't want to do that.

I do agree on one thing. Obama made political choices, rather than heart felt ones. I truly believe he always supported gay marriage but saw it wasn't possible politically...yet. He's a true pragmatist. Eventually he found enlightenment, but I believe he always saw the light of giving rights to everyone. But I could be wrong.

 

[VividVerism]

Have you not tried Palemoon? I use that on Linux and Windows. It's pretty much Firefox from 10 years ago as far as the GUI is concerned.

Also as far as the codebase is concerned.

Someone mentioned a single person was maintaining it for a while.

The information security professional in me is terrified of the thought of 10-year-old browser code with a single maintainer, in the best case.

The fact that the browser exists because a bunch of users had a tantrum over the removal of features that were holding back security improvements, so they forked to keep the insecure architecture in place, just makes it even worse.

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Waterfox started life long ago as a 64-bit version of FF. In fact, the first 64-bit version, long, long ago (2011). It doesn't exist because somebody threw a a "tantrum". It keeps the old extension system because that's what the users, overwhelmingly, wanted. They tried a non-XUL version of Waterfox; nobody was interested (might as well use regular FF then).

Also, the attitude of "throwing a tantrum" when Mozilla heavily deprecated customization, and then blamed add-on users for not updating to XML, when basic XML at that point wasn't even half finished... No. Mozilla's attitude and behaviour when deprecating XUL and switching to XML was horrible. "XML isn't even half finished, but it's add-on developers fault for not updating to it, despite it not being possible for most to do so yet".

I will admit I was mistaken about why PaleMoon was created. I had never heard of it, an never seen it promoted, until the XUL deprecation. And when I started seeing it promoted, it was specifically because it supported XUL. I made assumptions that are apparently false.

I stand by the rest of what I said. I would amend it only to say PaleMoon is only popular because it kept an insecure architecture in place.

And yes, I'd call it a tantrum. It's "you can pry Windows XP from my cold dead fingers" all over again. The look of a lot of things has changed, some features are new, some you liked have gone away, and you can't muck around in system folders with no restrictions anymore. There are VERY good reasons to MOVE ON.

I have more sympathy for the extension devs. But some extensions really should not be possible, for good reasons.

That's just your opinion. A lot of Firefox users just didn't care about security, as Mozilla themselves discovered. They were willing to live with the danger, to keep all that functionality XUL provided.

I mean...yeah, I guess. The number of people willing to run Android versions that have not been updated in several years, or (back to my analog) continuing to run Internet connected Windows XP systems when Windows 7 was reaching end of life proves a surprising number of people put surprisingly little value on information security.

That doesn't mean we should compromise everyone else's security to make them happy.