'Firefox Is Dead To Me' (theregister.com) 101
Veteran columnist Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols declared that Firefox was "dead" to him in a scathing opinion piece Tuesday that cites Mozilla's strategic missteps and the browser's declining technical performance as evidence of terminal decline. Vaughan-Nichols argues that Mozilla has fundamentally betrayed user trust by removing a longstanding promise never to sell personal data from its privacy policy in February, replacing it with a weaker pledge to "protect your personal information."
The veteran technology writer also criticized Mozilla's decision to discontinue Pocket, a popular article-saving service, and Fakespot, which identified fake online reviews, while pursuing what he called a misguided AI strategy. He cited user reports of Firefox running up to 30% slower than Chrome, consuming excessive memory, and failing to properly load major websites. Mozilla has also become financially more vulnerable, he argued, noting CFO Eric Muhlheim's admission that the company depends on Google for 90% of its revenue. According to federal data he cited, Firefox holds just 1.9% of the browser market, leading him to conclude the browser is "done."
The veteran technology writer also criticized Mozilla's decision to discontinue Pocket, a popular article-saving service, and Fakespot, which identified fake online reviews, while pursuing what he called a misguided AI strategy. He cited user reports of Firefox running up to 30% slower than Chrome, consuming excessive memory, and failing to properly load major websites. Mozilla has also become financially more vulnerable, he argued, noting CFO Eric Muhlheim's admission that the company depends on Google for 90% of its revenue. According to federal data he cited, Firefox holds just 1.9% of the browser market, leading him to conclude the browser is "done."
Firefox is great, Mozilla is flaky (Score:4, Insightful)
The browser itself is great. The statistics are perhaps wrong; I know a lot of people who use it, anyway. My guess is that most of the mobile audience does not. The audience got a lot bigger and most of them started using tech in the Chrome era and never have tried Firefox.
Mozilla however has been a dumpster fire since they ousted Brendan Eich. Clearly the lesser minds took over. If I have to hit "Dismiss" on a nag-window for another pointless update one more time...
Like Wikipedia, Mozilla receives most of its funds from Google, and that is deliberate. Mozilla was designed to unseat Internet Exploder. Wikipedia was designed so that Google's increasingly flaky search engine could always return some sort of apropos result. End benefit was to Google.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Mozilla however has been a dumpster fire since they ousted Brendan Eich."
Kind of begrudgingly . . . yeah. That's it. They've had bad times ever since. They need an engineer back in charge. They need their Lisa Su or Jensen Huang, someone who really, deeply understands what they can and can't get done, and can really focus their development on the things that get the most for the least effort.
They haven't had that since Brendan Eich. And it's been a mess in a lot of ways.
I'm optimistic about a lot of what t
Re:Firefox is great, Mozilla is flaky (Score:5, Informative)
The statistics are perhaps wrong; I know a lot of people who use it, anyway. My guess is that most of the mobile audience does not.
Not just mobile users, they shun business users almost entirely. That despite there being an enterprise version.
Mozilla managed your certificate store, making sure you can't mark as trusted any certs you trust, and can't mark CAs untrusted for very long as updates silently override your changes.
I'm not allowed to trust my own CA and am forced to trust CAs run by the chinese and russian governments. No thanks.
Their user settings policies are frequently ignored or reset in updates.
Using system defined DNS isn't the default and keeps reverting to their own servers.
External filtering is intentionally circumvented, with the only real option through extensions, which would be fine and all if only it was possible to deploy extensions to users, which it isn't.
Same issue with data syncing, can't deploy an extension to user profiles so nothing can be backed up centrally to restore when a new computer is logged into.
Chrome is heading down its own dark path too which is a very bad thing, but that doesn't excuse mozilla for not even trying.
Re: (Score:3)
Mozilla managed your certificate store, making sure you can't mark as trusted any certs you trust
Using same internal CA for well over a decade and never had any issues with Firefox. If you look in the details the system does make a distinction between internal and externally imported CAs yet this has no impact on accepting sites using custom CAs as trusted.
and can't mark CAs untrusted for very long as updates silently override your changes.
I'm not allowed to trust my own CA and am forced to trust CAs run by the chinese and russian governments. No thanks.
Suspect this is more likely old roots expiring out or a corrupt profile or something.
Their user settings policies are frequently ignored or reset in updates.
Using system defined DNS isn't the default and keeps reverting to their own servers.
I set network.trr.mode to 5 the very day the cloudflare DNS nonsense was pushed out in an update and it is still to this day 5 and has NEVER once changed. You can
Re: (Score:2)
Errr sorry but user error. None of these settings are managed by Firefox or even local config files. If anything is changing your DNS setup it's because your idiot H1B sourced IT admin doesn't know how to set the group policy object on windows that if present will always cause Firefox's DNS settings to be whatever the admin wants. If you can't trust your own CA it's because your policy hasn't set enterprise_roots.enabled which would cause Firefox to ignore it's internal CA and default to whatever you setup
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: Firefox is great, Mozilla is flaky (Score:5, Insightful)
Why tell stupid lies? (Score:4)
You burn your own credibility for in exchange for people laughing at you.
Re: (Score:2)
and they fired him because they didn't like the way he voted
He made his own position untenable by paying money to hurt his own employees and families.
They didn't want to work for him as is their absolute right, because until recently America was a free country. But turns out if as CEO you are about to cause a mass exodus of employees, you've fucked up and he did the only thing left available and quit to limit the damage.
He fucked up. He made his own position untenable. The blame rests entirely on his should
Re: (Score:2)
they should have fired him for inventing Javascript, to be fair
Re:Firefox is great, Mozilla is flaky (Score:5, Insightful)
Mozilla however has been a dumpster fire since they ousted Brendan Eich
They didn't oust Brendan Eich. Brendan Eich stepped on his own dick and ousted himself.
Eich paid money to cause harm to some of the employees of Mozilla, and the family and friends of some of the employees of Mozilla. That is his right. Funnily enough a lot of people don't like working for a boss who actively tries to harm them. But it's Eich's right to try and harm people who work for him.
It's also the right of the employees to say "fuck this shit I'm not working for that asshole".
Apparently enough of the employees did that that it would have caused very serious harm to Mozilla if they all left. Eich is the CEO, which means his duty is to the company and you're a pretty crap CEO if you cause all of your best employees to leave.
He free speecified money to hurt people, and those people free speecified a promise to not work for him. The only person at fault here is Eich. It was a problem entirely of his own making.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Pretty revealing that you classify all employees as interns.
Re: (Score:2)
You make it sound like a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Firefox is great, Mozilla is flaky (Score:2)
interns
You misspelled board of directors
Re: (Score:2)
It's also a pretty crap (and unstable) company if interns can cry enough to get the CEO out.
It's a pretty crap company if all employees are required to wear a cheese on their head. That has about as much relevance as your statement to Mozilla. We can keep going all day with daft what-ifs if you like.
Back in te real world, it was a lot of the actual full time employees. I'm not really sure why people are shocked, I say shocked and appalled that people working at a nonprofit with a mission to make the world a
Re: (Score:2)
The way you phrase that makes it sound like he hired thugs to go out and kneecap people. No such thing occurred. He made a small donation to support proposition 8 which opposed same sex marriage. At the time, only 52% of CA voters supported it, so by your POV, half of California wanted to "cause harm" to those same people. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton also opposed same sex marriage at that time, one later served two terms as President and the other came close. Yet here in the tech world, people jus
I still like it (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno. Chrome keeps restricting what extensions can do to the point where a lot of ad blockers and stuff are having trouble continuing to function. All of those extensions continue to work as expected on Firefox.
Granted, Chrome is mostly open source so one could just make a version that doesn't restrict what extensions can do, but either way I'm not liking Google trying to dictate what I can an can't run on the browser.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, same.
I continue to use Firefox as I always have. I have not noticed any performance difference between Edge, Chrome and Firefox. I use all three daily for different purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
One single time Chrome disabled uBlock Origin for me. All I had to do was check a box saying yes I agree and it was fine ever since.
Re: (Score:1)
One single time Chrome disabled uBlock Origin for me. All I had to do was check a box saying yes I agree and it was fine ever since.
Deprecation of manifest v2 started in June 2024, sometime slightly after is when people started getting those notifications.
Removal of manifest v2 overrides ends at the end of this month, June 2025.
We may get one more round of "we disabled these extensions..." but it won't have an option to reenable.
The following update will remove the v2 code.
Note there are two problems here.
v2 going away being replaced by v3, which wouldn't be a bad thing on its own, however
v3 being artificially resource limited in Google
Tech babbler stirs shit, film at 11 (Score:2)
Mozilla, the org, is in a bad spot, and I don't expect it to make it over the long term.
The browser is the best of the lot for me. I want privacy, security, and customization.
Chrome is a bucket of ass on the first and the third. I do not intentionally run spyware, end of story.
Safari gets a gentleman's C on the first, mostly because the third sucks.
Once Firefox dies, I think I'll need to pick up my personal proxy devel
'Firefox Is Dead To Me' (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pale Moon is just decade old Firefox code.
Re: (Score:2)
FUD
Re: (Score:1)
Pale Moon is just decade old Firefox code.
Wrong. It started out as a fork of Firefox, but it has been under constant development and has diverged significantly from the Firefox code.
I really like Palemoon, but unfortunately, the lead developer is an assclown who doesn't like criticism or suggestions and he has an irrational hatred of the Web Extensions format used by Firefox for extensions. As a result, there are very few extensions available for Palemoon and the ones that are available are old and outdated.
Also, Palemoon tends to choke on
Re: (Score:2)
Ever since Firefox exploded in memory use when they went multi-process, Pale Moon has been my default browser. I only miss containers because I could use multiple accounts simultaneously on specific sites for work.
Only my bank has a site which doesn't stick to common (not Google specific forced) web standards and doesn't work with Pale Moon with Firefox user agent, so that's the only reason I still have Firefox installed.
FF is in a mediocre state (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But Google Do Evil, so fuck them too.
Firefox needs a new "Phoenix" (Score:2)
Firefox run a kind of slow (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
on my Dell Latitude and iPhone, Firefox is about the only thing going that isn't chrome/chromium under the hood
Firefox on iOS is just a re-skinned Safari, as are ALL browsers on iOS. I still use it since it keeps my tabs and browsing history in sync, but it's just Safari.
Re: Firefox run a kind of slow (Score:2)
Most slowness I have seen has been at the other end - servers being slow or crappy javascript.
Why was he running Firefox? (Score:5, Insightful)
If he's fine with switching to Chrome, then he wasn't running Firefox for the right reasons anyway.
Chrome is proprietary spyware. If you care about privacy and/or open source, then you don't run Chrome.
Actual adblocking is never going to be possible on Chrome again. No one who wants a usable web will run it.
If the decision to discontinue the universally-detested Pocket was a strike against Mozilla for him, this man isn't worth listening to.
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, I didn't detest Pocket. OTOH, I never used it, either. But "universally detested" is wrong. I thought of it as "dead wood", but that's a very different category. There are LOTS of software capabilities that I don't use.
To me, panning a browser because it isn't optimized to run on a phone is silly. Saying I prefer a different browser on my phone would be sensible (if I though web browsing from a phone was sensible...but with my eyes that's never going to be true).
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I don't ask too much of my mobile browser, but Firefox on mobile works great for me. I can run ublock origin and privacy badger, and also run an extension that lets me reflow columns to make sites work better on mobile. In fact some sites work way better with this extension than their mobile sites do (slashdot is the best example... the mobile version is horrid). I've haven't used chrome or any chrome-based browser on my phone in years.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This story you made up and then argued against was super entertaining.
I don't see the issues at all (Score:4, Interesting)
I use Firefox on what is now ageing 2017 hardware and it seems very fast and snappy all the time. And never had it crash even once. But then I also use anti-tracking plugins, along with automatic cookie wipes. Maybe they help with the speed at least.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I have a desktop from about the same time running Mint and have had almost zero problems running Firefox. I had one lockup about a month ago, but that's been it.
Other than the excessive nagging about updates which can't be removed, it does exactly what a browser should do: display web pages.
If I may- (Score:5, Insightful)
I recently switched to Firefox, for a number of reasons that really aren't relevant to this post, but his arguments (at least in the summary) don't hold water in my experience.
(1) Pocket: One of the first things I remove when customizing FF. I've not seen anyone suggest it, and seen a fair amount of dislike for it.
(2) Memory Use: Perhaps valid prior to 2000, but c'mon, every system I've worked with (both at home and at work) have a minimum of 16GB of RAM, the days of a 4GB system with a spinner drive are long long gone. Pop on some, quite required actually, ad-blockers, and use isn't any worse than Chromium or Safari browsers.
(3) Failing to load websites: Name one. In point of fact, since Chrome and Edge are built under the same structure, I often use FF to troubleshoot website weirdness to see where the problem really is. Sure, experience of one here, but I've not seen any site (from private, individual user, to public corp to gov't) mis-load under FF.
(4) Personal data for sale: Okay, I'll give him that, if he can prove it's happening.
(5) Low browser marketshare: So? Does FF stop working because it's got a small number? Quick, better let Linux know this!
This guy sounds like he's whinging just to put out some clickbait article. Not buying it.
Re: (Score:2)
(3) Failing to load websites: Name one.
realtor.com won't load for me. I've seen a few more. It's *probably* because of cranking security settings up, probably loads fine on a fresh install.
Re: (Score:1)
(3) Failing to load websites: Name one.
realtor.com won't load for me. I've seen a few more. It's *probably* because of cranking security settings up
In other words. the problem isn't Firefox. It's a website doing some sort of retarded fuckery that it shouldn't be doing.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to admit that I upgraded from 4G -> 32G of RAM, and from spinning rust to NVME for my /home dir only a few months ago for my home desktop (which is my main home computer).
Firefox had been getting slower and slower and more and more memory hungry for years. Now it's lean and mean again. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
It simply does not matter what you think about LGBTQ+. The fact is that the people who are socially center-right on this have a vote, and Firefox's marketshare collapsed when they fired Eich for supporting Prop 8.
That happened in 2014 and Firefox was already circling the drain. They were under 15% of the market and slowly declining. https://gs.statcounter.com/bro... [statcounter.com]
In 2025 Firefox is competing with Samsung's phone browser at 2.39% https://gs.statcounter.com/bro... [statcounter.com]
Re:Activists are actively dangerous to FOSS projec (Score:5, Interesting)
It simply does not matter what you think about LGBTQ+.
This cuts both ways, if your CEO is taking activist positions then that reflects on the company he heads, being it's face and name. Activism begets more activism, Eich is free as an American citizen to donate to whatever causes he supports but freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. Also this wasn't just a mild religious objection to gay marriage, during Prop 8 there was a pretty harsh campaign against gay people in general and from some of the groups Eich donated to. He also donated to Pat Buchanan which also paints a picture of the man.
Just a Reminder: The Campaign for Prop 8 Was Unprecedentedly Cruel [slate.com]
I am not saying either way whether it was the right move for Mozilla to part ways with Eich over this but for Eich there is a bit of "you're the public facing CEO of a company, a company with a particular userbase which is already on the decline, read the room a little"
Re: (Score:3)
Firstly, this idea that anyone should just be able to cleanly separate art from artist, this is just gaslighting from artists who pissed off their fans somehow. This concept isn't real, it's just varying degrees of where people moral lines are.
If he was just some programmer or marketing person I would agree, who cares, but this is the CEO of a public facing company, your personal beliefs are reflected onto the company and this is OK. How many CEO's of companies of 8 figure revenue companies are there? 10k
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is putting him in jail here, again, you do not have freedom from consequences of your speech. That's silly.
How is this any different than saying "You are free to do whatever you want but you are not free from the consequences" ?
What's silly is repeatedly making pointless, meaningless, unfalsifiable statements in which the concept of freedom itself is rendered entirely meaningless.
Freedom from imposed consequences is the whole point of freedom.
Freedom is a concept that is by no means limited to a states legal regime.
This isn't how he talks to his kids and wife behind closed doors this is him spending the oodles of excess luxury cash he has from his lofted position to do activism. And he saw consequences because it was stupid for him to take a position at all imo.
Intolerance is incompatible with a free society.
Re: (Score:2)
This cuts both ways, if your CEO is taking activist positions then that reflects on the company he heads, being it's face and name. Activism begets more activism, Eich is free as an American citizen to donate to whatever causes he supports but freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
Saying freedom is not freedom from consequences is unfalsifiable gibberish that doesn't mean anything.
Yet another Register hit piece (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd rather use a slower browser that honors the user's choice of extensions--in particular those that block malicious content and privacy-violating advertising trackers--than an ostensibly faster browser that is created by a company whose entire business model is to gather as much tracking data about you in order to sell it to advertisers.
There are alternatives to both Firefox and Chrome. But choosing to use Chrome because Firefox isn't perfect is either the height of idiocy, or being paid to promote Google products.
Why Does This Jackass Still Have A Megaphone? (Score:3)
I really don't know why Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols is still permitted to have a megaphone.
He's always been a clueless ass. But, defending the useless piece of shit that was Pocket proves my assertion. Everyone hated Pocket, from day one. Nobody used Pocket, despite Mozilla's best efforts. Finally they dump it, to cheers, and this ass-clown is vexed.
Firefox is trying to kill itself. But, anyone reading Vaughan-Nichols drivel is wasting their life.
I use FF but (Score:1)
I do use FF almost exclusively, but there are real problems.
Performance is indeed poor. The browser is indeed flaky. Pocket is indeed a problem but they never should have bought it. They have indeed watered down their privacy promises. And mobile Firefox has atrocious memory leaks related to JavaScript. I have to kill it several times a day because it uses all my phone's memory.
But chrome is a privacy disaster so it's not all roses either, and the various other credible browsers are all chrome skins.
We need
hard to know (Score:2)
It's hard to know if I got down modded for suggesting that Firefox is not perfect, which we all know, or that Chrome is a way for Google to collect your info and sabotage ad blocking, which we all know
Why Is Brave Not More Popular (Score:4, Informative)
Not exactly Firefox related, but this story got me wondering...
The Brave browser is really quite good and is very privacy focused. But, it's still very niche.
Why is it not far more popular?
https://brave.com/ [brave.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Brave killed FF for me and everyone I know. I suspect it's because of the scammy-crypto elements. I was nervous that it was a "cheap" Chrome clone...since the seamless Chrome looks is it's supposed to look like. I tried FF again last year and uninstalled again. I have to use Chrome for testing and specific sites that are too bound up in elements detected to be adtech. It's too much trouble to maintain disparate browser envs. - posted from Brave
Re: (Score:2)
Brendan Eich, a couple of minor scandals, and their monetization.
Personally, I think it should be more popular. It's impossible to only use products made by people who share your worldview; the minor scandals all had good responses and resolutions; and turning off the crypto/AI/VPN bologna is a couple clicks after install. Then after that it's a Chrome-like browser that just works with good ad-blocking and a focus on privacy protection.
As long as they keep emiting ESRs I'll use it (Score:3)
Imagine waving your workflow disrupted by weird feature changes only once a year, istead of each 4 weeks...
Bliss...
On a more serious note, until the do something very brutal, I'll stick with the ESR. After all, what is the option today? Chrome? Edgium? Some other Chrome derivative? Projects with usage percentages measured in less than 1% or even less than 0.1%?
Having said that, I am looking at ladybird with the utmost interest (servo too), so, who knows what the future will bring...? ...
Re: (Score:2)
There are several alternatives, depending on your use-case. My fall-back is Falkon (from KDE).
Economics Complete Absent from Article (Score:3)
Mozilla is a 501(c)3 non-profit. It doesn't have a massive revenue source like Google, Microsoft, and Apple in the funding of their browsers. In fact, Mozilla has historically relied on Google for funds. Today, there's a lot less cash being thrown around. There's massive economic uncertainty due to the whims of some governmental executives, a long-slow war in Eastern Europe, and an expanding war in the Middle East. Interest rates are up. Very "up".
One of the few things people with too much money are willing to throw money at is "AI". 5 years ago it was "blockchain" and 5 years before that it was "VR", but today, it's AI. Mozilla NEEDS to look like they're going all in on AI to attract more funds because stupid people with money are told that AI will make everything more efficient, faster, and accessible.
In that time, while funds are being reduced, a non-profit needs to reduce its expenses. It's very likely that Pocket and Fakespot provide too little benefit to too little of a userbase for the expense to maintain the programs. About the two programs--
I used Fakespot to help shop on Amazon. I liked it and I'm sorry to see it go. I also know no one in the real world that knew about it. Amazon actively hated and submitted multiple complaints against Fakespot resulting it it being delisted from the Apple App store at least once. That said, there's a lot of computing power required to analyze and index ALL Amazon products. It seems like a very expensive product to maintain. It makes sense that it's getting cut.
Pocket is just a bookmark/article storage app. The principle is great "bookmark something to read later on any device", but that also means maintaining account infrastructure cloud storage, updating settings, etc. I think the most interesting thing about Pocket is to investigate just how many saved articles were visited later by their users. I'm willing to bet that fewer than 10% of articles saved for later reading were even clicked on ever again. That's not intended to be a dig at Pocket, Mozilla, or the users of Pocket, but more of a commentary of how we hoard things "just in case".
Lastly, let's talk about the sale of user data. Mozilla previously said, "Never" and now is saying, "Only safely". Before you call them traitors to life, consider asking "Why?". Might it be because they're desperately low on funds from prior contributors and need to find SOME sort of revenue to keep operations going? And if they have to sell user data to keep the doors open, isn't it best that they do so in such a way as to not be able to to personally identify any of their users?
It just seems that this article's author is quick to condemn Mozilla for being less righteous today than yesterday while it's trying to stay afloat in a sea of competitors who make no effort or illusion to righteousness. The article is akin to screaming at your child for getting a B+ after having missed 2 weeks of class while in the hospital.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that I've frequently heard of "anonymized" data being de-anonymized. It's not something I worry about a great deal, but perhaps I should worry more...and I've no real way to tell.
Using FireFox to read this thread! (Score:4, Interesting)
If I'm honest about it? I feel like it's been years since any one web browser felt "better" than another to me for technical reasons like speed/performance or ability to work properly with web sites I needed to use.
My preference for FireFox has more to do with such things as the UI layout and the way it "compartmentalizes" certain things. (EG. On a Windows platform, it still manages SSL certificates in their own place, vs. sharing the common set of them stored and managed in Windows itself.) The fact it's NOT another Chromium-based browser means it's handy for troubleshooting too. (If I have issues with a web site, I like to have both a browser like Edge or Chrome AND FireFox to use so I can test it with both web engines.)
Who are these people who care SO much about how fast a browser renders content, anyway? It's the ongoing joke over on Apple forums with Safari browser.... "New MacOS release makes Safari snappier!" On any non prehistoric computer, web browsers performing poorly almost always have more to do with either the speed of the Internet connection itself, memory issues from somebody leaving a million tabs open, or poorly written web site code. I don't care what a stopwatch says. I care about the overall user experience, and it's fast enough in any decent browser.
Re: (Score:2)
My preference for Firefox is based on the bookmark sidebar, with nested folders of bookmarks (similar to the way file are nested within folders on a disk drive).
Firefox is definately usable. (Score:3)
I like it, I've used it for years. I have anywhere from 200 to 500 tabs open at any given time and it works fine.
So what are you going to switch to if you don't like firefox selling your data? Chrome? They don't use your data? Chrome tracks everything you do.
Re: (Score:2)
It does always boggle my mind that, as much as people HATE ads, they have no problem with using a browser by an ad tech company...
LibreWolf is my current go to (Score:2)
Once configured the way I like it, it has been a very good performer with privacy by default in mind. But if FF folds it will take LibreWolf with it.
The problem with opinion pieces like this, there is no offer of a better solution. Chrome? No thank you. Addon capabilities were hobbled on that platform because Google was losing access to your data. This applies to all the chromium derivatives as well like Edge.
I had used Brave for some time as the "lesser of chrome evils" but at least for me it has beco
Counterpoint (Score:2)
From TFA:
Pocket is a helpful program that many people I know use to keep "read-it-later" web content easily at hand.
Pocket is something I never used and had disabled in my "user.js" file -- and it seems many people apparently did the same. I also have a *bunch* of other things disabled; maybe that helps with performance and stability? In fact, first thing I do when a new version is released is see what new "features" I have to disable. Not a ringing endorsement of Mozilla's development efforts/direction, but at least I (still) have the option of disabling many (most?) things, unlike in Chrome/Edge.
Can't
Re: (Score:2)
Pocket was a browser extension and it was fine. It was only put into the core to advertise for it after Mozilla bought them. There was no difference, except that you didn't need to install it yourself.
I woudln't discredit this being puff by Google (Score:2)
Remember folks: Google is actively blocking adblock on their platform and a LOT of people are moving back to Firefox due to more effective anti-youtube-adblock.
Cry more. (Score:2)
This is engagement rage bait (Score:2)
I've been trying to prune this crap from my YouTube feed but it's basically impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
In general, I agree with you, but this particular article is, for me, an exception. It got me up to date on Firefox, and may lead me to finally ditch it for good.
I was an early Firefox user...one of the first. I left when it got into disabling extensions I liked, and screwed with the GUI on what seemed like a weekly basis. I put it back as a secondary browser when that nonsense finally settled down. The promise never to sell my personal data was important to me. If that's gone, that's strike one. Stri
What's wrong with FIrefox? (Score:2)
Firefox is snappy, it's quick, it responds, and it works. Sure, the memory is a little high, but is that really a concern in 2025? If you're having to worry about a few gigs
I'm skeptical about tech columnists to start (Score:2)
But... getting worked up about pocket? I saw dumping pocket as a good thing - if only because it indicated they were shedding some of the external (non-core business) distractions that annoyed me about Mozilla.
In any case, the man is free to have his own opinions... just as I'm free not to listen to them.
If Firefox is dead, what is Google Chrome? (Score:2)
Sure, Firefox management has become worse in several ways, but in comparison to main competitors like Google Chrome or whatever Microsoft wants you to use right now it is still the much better alternative.
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols' rant does not include what he would suggest as an alternative. I doubt he would have anything to suggest.
and... what? (Score:2)
Yes they fucked up, but also there is nothing else left, Google is worse for the reasons mentioned against Firefox and... Here we are
PPA (Score:2)
Ignore the privacy policy debate, what if Mozilla isn't absolutely insane only covers Mozilla services and not the browser and doesn't matter for most users, and Pocket, what they should never have bought it first place.
The real problem is PPA. And not only the feature itself, but the mindset you need to add such a feature.
"We are a privacy first browser! Advertisers, here is a feature to make the privacy first browser sent you ad tracking data!"
By the way, one doesn't hear much about PPA. Did everyone calm
Firefox's death is greatly exaggerated (Score:2)
I'll add my voice to the chorus of "who cares about pocket, firefox works great" and it's the best platform to load up on anti-tracking, anti-adware, anti-spyware plugins and go surfing.
If firefox as a product degrades enough, someone most likely will come up with a viable replacement. The fact that there hasn't been a huge effort put into one shows that Firefox is still a very viable platform. You can change / disable just about anything that bothers you, and it has robust extension support. Those ar
Proper alternatives (Score:1)
uBlock Origin & more (Score:2)
Google ripped ripped uBlock Origin out of Chrome, and replaced it with the useful but inferior uBlock Origin Lite.
Mozilla did not touch it and it still works great on Firefox.
Chrome has a tendency to leak a lot of data in incognito mode. Partially due to Google's own meddling.
Firefox private and Firefox Focus are significantly better, but not perfect. Mostly because trackers have gotten rather sophisticated.
So I don't consider Chrome to be a viable alternative for an every day browser.
Brave can be an intere
Time spent (Score:2)
I spend more time reading anti-Firefox stuff on this site than I do griping about Firefox or dealing with issues in it.
How many times do we have to beat the same horse? (Score:1)
I'm starting to get the impression that beating on Firefox is Slashdot's favorite pastime
PS1. What part of 'Firefox is open source' he can't understand? If Mozilla goes down, Firefox's code isn't going anywhere.
PS2. Enjoy Google's privacy and a lot of ads with Chrome. Ads give the browser an incredible speed boost. Sellout.
Solution to increase numbers: OS/2 port. (Score:2)
EULA (Score:2)