'Firefox is Fine. The People Running It are Not' (theregister.com) 42
"Firefox is dead to me," wrote Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols last month for The Register, complaining about everything from layoffs at Mozilla to Firefox's discontinuation of Pocket and Fakespot, its small market share, and some user complaints that the browser might be becoming slower. But a new rebuttal (also published by The Register) argues instead that Mozilla just has "a management layer that doesn't appear to understand what works for its product nor which parts of it matter most to users..."
"Steven's core point is correct. Firefox is in a bit of a mess — but, seriously, not such a bad mess. You're still better off with it — or one of its forks, because this is FOSS — than pretty much any of the alternatives." Like many things, unfortunately, much of computing is run on feelings, tradition, and group loyalties, when it should use facts, evidence, and hard numbers. Don't bother saying Firefox is getting slower. It's not. It's faster than it has been in years. Phoronix, the go-to site for benchmarks on FOSS stuff, just benchmarked 21 versions, and from late 2023 to now, Firefox has steadily got faster and faster...
Ever since Firefox 1.0 in 2004, Firefox has never had to compete. It's been attached like a mosquito to an artery to the Google cash firehose... Mozilla's leadership is directionless and flailing because it's never had to do, or be, anything else. It's never needed to know how to make a profit, because it never had to make a profit. It's no wonder it has no real direction or vision or clue: it never needed them. It's role-playing being a business. Like we said, don't blame the app. You're still better off with Firefox or a fork such as Waterfox. Chrome even snoops on you when in incognito mode...
One observer has been spectating and commentating on Mozilla since before it was a foundation — one of its original co-developers, Jamie Zawinksi... Zawinski has repeatedly said: "Now hear me out, but What If...? browser development was in the hands of some kind of nonprofit organization?"
"In my humble but correct opinion, Mozilla should be doing two things and two things only:
— Building THE reference implementation web browser, and
— Being a jugular-snapping attack dog on standards committees.
— There is no 3."
Perhaps this is the only viable resolution. Mozilla, for all its many failings, has invented a lot of amazing tech, from Rust to Servo to the leading budget phone OS. It shouldn't be trying to capitalize on this stuff. Maybe encourage it to have semi-independent spinoffs, such as Thunderbird, and as KaiOS ought to be, and as Rust could have been. But Zawinski has the only clear vision and solution we've seen yet. Perhaps he's right, and Mozilla should be a nonprofit, working to fund the one independent, non-vendor-driven, standards-compliant browser engine.
"Steven's core point is correct. Firefox is in a bit of a mess — but, seriously, not such a bad mess. You're still better off with it — or one of its forks, because this is FOSS — than pretty much any of the alternatives." Like many things, unfortunately, much of computing is run on feelings, tradition, and group loyalties, when it should use facts, evidence, and hard numbers. Don't bother saying Firefox is getting slower. It's not. It's faster than it has been in years. Phoronix, the go-to site for benchmarks on FOSS stuff, just benchmarked 21 versions, and from late 2023 to now, Firefox has steadily got faster and faster...
Ever since Firefox 1.0 in 2004, Firefox has never had to compete. It's been attached like a mosquito to an artery to the Google cash firehose... Mozilla's leadership is directionless and flailing because it's never had to do, or be, anything else. It's never needed to know how to make a profit, because it never had to make a profit. It's no wonder it has no real direction or vision or clue: it never needed them. It's role-playing being a business. Like we said, don't blame the app. You're still better off with Firefox or a fork such as Waterfox. Chrome even snoops on you when in incognito mode...
One observer has been spectating and commentating on Mozilla since before it was a foundation — one of its original co-developers, Jamie Zawinksi... Zawinski has repeatedly said: "Now hear me out, but What If...? browser development was in the hands of some kind of nonprofit organization?"
"In my humble but correct opinion, Mozilla should be doing two things and two things only:
— Building THE reference implementation web browser, and
— Being a jugular-snapping attack dog on standards committees.
— There is no 3."
Perhaps this is the only viable resolution. Mozilla, for all its many failings, has invented a lot of amazing tech, from Rust to Servo to the leading budget phone OS. It shouldn't be trying to capitalize on this stuff. Maybe encourage it to have semi-independent spinoffs, such as Thunderbird, and as KaiOS ought to be, and as Rust could have been. But Zawinski has the only clear vision and solution we've seen yet. Perhaps he's right, and Mozilla should be a nonprofit, working to fund the one independent, non-vendor-driven, standards-compliant browser engine.
A management layer that does not understand (Score:3, Insightful)
Inertia and Too Big to Change (Score:2)
The elephant in the room no one wants to talk about is that we're stuck with a 26 year old web html / javascript / css / connectionless protocol technology stack and none of the largest companies and stakeholders with a voice are willing to propose a significant replacement and carry that replacement to universal adoption and getting a W3C/ECMA standard for it.
Widely used web frameworks and languages still are underlaid with the legacy JavaScript technology, legacy layout and legacy use of connectionless pr
I use Brave (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Brave is a different sort of exploitware though. Read the history of it. Very shady behavior. There is no way in hell I would trust those people.
Since Google disabled uBlock even in Chromium, Firefox is really the only option.
Re:I use Brave (Score:4, Informative)
Since Google disabled uBlock even in Chromium, Firefox is really the only option.
What about a host file? I use a the Ultimate Hosts Blacklist (from github), and ads are (mostly) gone. I don't need anything else.
Re:I use Brave (Score:4, Funny)
APK would be proud!
Re: (Score:1)
Ads isn't the issue there just annoying it's the fact that Chrome is stealing and monetizing every bit of data on your computer it can access that's the second problem. The first being your fine with that.
Re: I use Brave (Score:4, Informative)
Re: I use Brave (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a common problem nowadays with AI automatic spell checking just about everywhere. It's easy for a person to type a long paragraph and to find that one of the words typed has been surreptitiously replaced by the system. AI slop at its finest, making human authors say things they didn't actually say (probably) since 2022!
Figuring out exactly where some hidden setting resides that can disable this behaviour is futile: It's a full treasure hunt jus
firefox has become an alternative (Score:2)
I've become a long time user of Pale Moon because of the wayward direction of Firefox. I loved it when it slowly dethroned IE because it was good at what it did, but then it slowly lost its way. It became a wanna-be instead of keeping a steadfast course towards its original goal.
Pale Moon has been my main browser for many years and Firefox has been relegated to sites coded towards framework and spyware du jour where I have no other choice.
Firefox is Indeed Fine (Score:4, Interesting)
I switched to firefox recently. I got myself a framework laptop and run Linux on it and I decided to switch to firefox, principally because Google has been blocking add ons I use like ublock origin and others.
It behaves well. I have no problem with it and it's not blocking the add-ons I use.
Re: (Score:2)
I take that back; I did run into a site (can't remember now what it was) that told me I needed to update my browser, when what they actually wanted me to do was switch to Chrome/Chromium.
Firefox is better but these arguments are weak (Score:2, Interesting)
The wrongly say Firefox/Waterfox are good because FOSS, while Chrome is bad because google snoops on you. The argument lacks logic. They should never compare to Chrome. They should compare to Chromite, Ungoogled-chromium, or other FOSS based on the blink codebase, that are specifically designed to not include google spyware.
Of course Firefox still wins, because 1) chromium limits adblocking technologies, 2) chromium makes it nearly compulsory to have a Google account to install an extension (you can install
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
That is the most retarded thing I've read today and I've been reading Rsilvergun comments ...
The only thing that matters is this part ==> "while Chrome is bad because google snoops on you" == again that is the only part that matters.
No one cares about knock off FOSS versions of Chrome that hey have never heard about. Chrome is the issue pull your head out of your ass.
Group loyalty (Score:2)
The rebuttal first says:
You're still better off with it – or one of its forks, because this is FOSS...
then:
unfortunately, much of computing is run on feelings, tradition, and group loyalties
Spoken like a true group loyalist.
Opera Browser (Score:1)
Re: Opera Browser (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone who cares about open standards and browser diversity.
Opera is just another browser based on Chromium.
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely, you can pry Firefox from my cold dead hands. I have no interest in a Chromium monoculture.
The one to watch is Ladybird, if and when it reaches a 1.0 milestone.
Though I'm still hopeful a reborn Servo will be the browser of choice on Redox OS (Rust all the way down).
Re: (Score:3)
You can keep your Chinese controlled browser as we don't need it.
I haven't noticed (Score:4, Insightful)
I've seen stories like this but I'm a lot happier with Firefox than the other browsers out there, both on desktop and on mobile. It does what I want, I worry less about telemetry when using it, there are useful extensions both on desktop and mobile, I get fewer nags. I don't have any issues.
The snap package is pretty bad (Score:2)
But it is getting incrementally better. The moment you install the native package though, you wonder why you ever put up with the performance hit in the first place
I have the opposite idea (Score:2)
Mozilla should be focusing on Rust consulting services. Mozilla has expertise in Rust. Mozilla has some control on Rustand in best cases can influence Rust to solve the problems of their customers. That power that can bring a lot of cash if they deal with big corporates. Cash, in turn, can fund the browser.
Firefox is fine (Score:2)
It just needs an email client.
- Jamie Zawinksi
Firefox is fine (Score:2)
I use Firefox pretty much exclusively, on both mobile and desktop, and it is fine.
I don't get involved with the drama surrounding the people at Mozilla.
I am not sure about that (Score:3)
I run three browsers (Vivaldi, Brave and Firefox) and I have started to note site-rot on Firefox, i.e. stuff does not work that works on both the others. Yes, I am aware both Vivaldi and Brave are Chromium based. But I have not found effects like that before. Before it was more random one of the three not doing stuff. Now, this may be a problem on the Web-dev side or a browser problem. But it is not a good sign.
Firefox is a public good (Score:3)
I think we need firefox for the same reason we need operating systems, and roads.
They should be a foundation focused on keeping the web safe, they fit in the same niche as the FSF, or EFF. A public good.
That said, why they don't do things like say... reach out to goverments and buisnesses for grants aside from google, and make a browser that works well for enterprise use and privacy at scale.
Failing since 2009 (Score:3)
Mozilla has been incapable of making a good business decision since 2009. They've gotten in and out of numerous side-hustles, seeking to make quick cash or create low-effort revenue streams.... usually 18 to 24 months too late to actually succeed.
They have ceded leadership of the browser space to Chrome. Part of how Firefox got worse is that it just started copying whatever Chrome did to cheapen the browsing experience. Another big part is their addiction to messing with Firefox's UI for no reason whatsoever. Firefox used to be the browser for power-users, now the user's agency is perfunctory at best.
Then there was the whole ordeal of disavowing Thunderbird.
Mozilla has new leadership now, packed with even more marketing and PR people rather than a new generation of technical innovators. Their race to 0% market share continues.
Major usability issues (Score:2)
Firefox still doesn't allow editing (e.g. deleting) items from bookmarks or browsing search results. So the URL auto completion suggests websites that you might have visited once a year ago, and you can't remove them through the search feature.
Hope they hang in there... (Score:2)
But, honestly, web standards are more and more rapidly becoming whatever gets put in the Chromium code base.
Which would be fine, if Chromium was meant to a be reference implementation. But it's not. It's used to keep people going to the web and Google for as much as possible. After all, need that ad revenue.
At this point, we are stuck with web applications on the desktop. I'd love a desktop version of things like Amazon, Facebook, Insta and so on. But, the story on Windows isn't compelling enough and enough