38 ms·

While I applaud the effort that's gone into this, I urge people to consider (and use and contribute to!) Firefox. It's one of the last truly open-source browser

While I applaud the effort that's gone into this, I urge people to consider (and use and contribute to!) Firefox. It's one of the last truly open-source browsers - both in terms of source code visibility (which Chrome(ium) has), and in terms of being able to contribute (which Chrome(ium) has not).

eth0up 10y ago
Any opinions on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Moon_%28web_browser%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Moon_%28web_browser%29 ?
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  No good reason to run that instead of Firefox. It looks like their main motivation to fork was to preserve XUL and XPCOM, but since Firefox doesn't plan to keep those, almost no addons will continue using them; every maintained addon will update to work with current Firefox. And using an unmaintained addon is dangerous.
  - criley2 10y ago
    >every maintained addon will update to work with current Firefox Those that can be will be, but I imagine entire categories, scores and scores of addons will be abandoned. So much of what people expect from Firefox addons is going away with no replacement in favor of basically light javascript web apps. Which is the point of the switch: dramatically reduce addon functionality in the interest of safety / security.
  - superkuh 10y ago
    Except for Mozilla's policy of trying to making Firefox race Chrome to be the best browser for the lowest common denominator. You can't even edit your addons in Firefox anymore. They have to be signed by Mozilla. > And using an unmaintained addon is dangerous. And this is the kind of thinking I'm talking about. Firefore/Chrome/etc are all about protecting tech ignorants from themselves rather than allowing adept users to do what they want.
    - JoshTriplett 10y ago
      > And this is the kind of thinking I'm talking about. The kind of thinking that says "security-sensitive software with no active maintenance and regular updates is a security hole waiting to happen"? Letting users install and run unmaintained software is dangerous. They'll get exploited. (And they'll blame the browser for that, and rightfully so.) You can still do what you want; it's entirely possible to install local untrusted addons. You just have to poke some settings that are intentionally hidden from most end users, to make it somewhat more likely that users doing so understand the implications. And similarly, you can make your addon available to others willing to go through the same steps. They'll balk at doing so, and rightfully so.
      - chocolateboy 10y ago
        > it's entirely possible to install local untrusted addons. You just have to poke some settings that are intentionally hidden from most end users It's possible to install unsigned addons in ESR, developer and unbranded builds of Firefox. It's no longer possible to install them in the regular release or beta versions. The hidden setting was disabled in Firefox 48.
        smsm42 10y ago
        I don't get this. I mean, it's ok to have an option to install untrusted code off by default. It's even OK to bury it somewhere in "advanced settings". But after that, I think you're done your due diligence in protecting me from myself, and anything beyond that is impeding, not protecting.
      - hlandau 10y ago
        >Letting users install and run unmaintained software is dangerous. Which is... exactly what Windows and Linux still do, rightly. >And they'll blame the browser for that, and rightfully so. Not at all rightfully so. Moreover the supposed security gain from this is absurd. So a user can't accidentally install a malicious extension... but they can install malicious software. Which, being that it has full access to the system, could patch Firefox if it liked to disable the signing check. I won't use a browser which implements restrictive code signing practices.
  - alphapapa 10y ago
    > And using an unmaintained addon is dangerous. Who says the addons have to be unmaintained? https://github.com/Pale-Moon-Addons-Team https://github.com/Pale-Moon-Addons-Team And look man, a lot of addons don't need to be "maintained," they just keep working. An addon that adds a button to the UI or something like that--it doesn't need to be constantly churned. Something like NoScript and ad-blocking addons need more attention, but a lot of very useful addons that let users customize their browser will continue working as long as the underlying APIs do. So please lay off the scary language. Better be careful, when the Pale Moon comes out, addons become "dangerous"! :P
- vocatus_gate 10y ago
  I've been using Pale Moon for a few years now and really like it. Faster than Firefox, many of the obnoxious elements of the new UI pared down or stripped out, and binary-compatible with almost all Firefox extensions. Give it a shot and see if you like it.
JoshTriplett 10y ago
While I agree that people should pay more attention to Firefox, it is possible for anyone to contribute to Chromium, and many people do.
ocdtrekkie 10y ago
I would love to. But as a recent and former Firefox user, the performance just wasn't there. Both Edge and Chrome are significantly faster. I'm hoping electrolysis helps greatly in this regard. I'll be happy to switch back.
- quickben 10y ago
  Just out of curiosity, what are you using the browser for that one is noticeably slower than the other?
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    Just general web browsing. The big hindrance was that combined thread for UI and rendering. For example, the old version of Google+ had an average page load time of twelve seconds. During that time, Firefox's entire UI would seize (Windows would mark it as "Not responding" until the page load completed.) You couldn't even go look at another tab or something in the meantime.
  - the_duke 10y ago
    Chrome just feels considerably faster. Page transitions, time to render, fast JS engine. Firefox just feels clunky in comparison, sadly.
sunnyps 10y ago
Why do you say that it's not easy to contribute to Chromium? Also the "last truly open-source" browser is hyperbolic given that Chromium is both open-source and is also developed in the open[1][2][3]. If anything over the past few years it has become more open-source as many components have been upstreamed (e.g. pdfium, android/ios stuff, etc.) [1] Chromium bug tracker: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list [2] Chromium code reviews: https://codereview.chromium.org/ https://codereview.chromium.org/ [3] Chromium development mailing lists: https://www.chromium.org/developers/technical-discussion-groups https://www.chromium.org/developers/technical-discussion-gro...
- hgf888 10y ago
  It doesn't matter if it's open source - it's an issue of trust. Firefox has never secretly downloaded binary blobs in the background which listen to my microphone without my permission or knowledge.[1] Chromium lost all my trust that day, even if none of my private conversations/data made it to Google that particular time. [1] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=500922 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=500922
  - tomjakubowski 10y ago
    It certainly matters with respect to the point that the top level commenter was making.
  - mortehu 10y ago
    The fact that it had the ability to listen to audio shouldn't be the issue, since it wouldn't do that unless you explicitly enabled it. Your grammar is kind of ambiguous there. Certainly it was downloaded without permission, but it wasn't listening without permission. Any web page can listen to your microphone if you allow it to, and the code for it can be downloaded without your consent, even if you have JavaScript disabled, if it's embedded in the HTML code.
    - RubyPinch 10y ago
a3_nm 10y ago
I agree with your claim, but I don't think it is a good idea to claim that Chromium is not "truly open-source" because (you claim) it is hard to contribute. This may cause more confusion about what "open source" really means. In fact, it's perfectly OK for open-source software to refuse outside contributions altogether! (Aka the "cathedral" model, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar#.22The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar#....) In other words, open-source software maintainers are under no obligation to accept outside contributions. The only freedom you are guaranteed in this respect is the freedom to start a fork.
fowlerpower 10y ago
I second this opinion. I think Chrome has a lot of interesting parts from a technological perspective. However, I think Firefox as an organization has done more for JavaScript and that community as far as fostering an open environment than any other browser maker. So providing a good browser plus fostering and growing the development community are both great things. Another advantage is that it is not tied to some large conglomerate that is now engaged in questionable practices. That you need to rip entire parts of the code base out in this manner. This sort of thing has never been a concern with Firefox. In general I think people ought to look at Google much more skeptically than they used to and all of the technologies that they push for. They all in some way push their agenda forward.
- sverige 10y ago
  > In general I think people ought to look at Google much more skeptically than they used to and all of the technologies that they push for. They all in some way push their agenda forward. I've been skeptical of Google for a long time, and quit using them as much as possible since they rolled out "Don't be evil." Talk about telegraphing the punch.
  - fowlerpower 10y ago
    It's funny how corporate marketing works. For a long time I used to really love their products and their processes. Maybe it was when they got rid of "don't be evil" but at some point they started turning into just another corporation. A corporation with a ton of resources and a ton of people's information. Anyway I don't want to go into a rant but lately everything they do even the open source stuff is just to further their agenda and seldom to help the community.
    - nixos 10y ago
      As far as I remember, it was around when Google+ came out. Google started as a technology company for nerds. Remember when Google broke all "rules" when their website was a simple image, input, and two buttons? Then they were into open standards, tech innovation, and where the company was run by engineers, and not media people (see Yahoo). The result was a focus on UX and not design. Unfortunately, around when Google+ came out, they decided they're done with that, and became a "company for the masses". XMPP integration - dead Open Source apps - dead They're back to bloat (just JS instead of animated GIFs and Flash), "beauty" over "UX", closed source apps (remember when most apps put out by Google were open source? Remember the shock that Picasso wasn't?)
trollian 10y ago
Have you ever tried contributing to Firefox from outside Mozilla Corp? My experience was not positive.
- callahad 10y ago
  Could you please tell me more about your experience? The core Firefox / Gecko repos can be a bit conservative and slow to accept patches, but subprojects like Firefox Accounts / Sync, Devtools, Rust / Servo, browser.html, TestPilot, etc. tend have much lower friction while still affecting the direction of Firefox. As an example, we recently replaced the JavaScript debugger with one written in HTML instead of XUL, using React, etc. All on GitHub and super accessible to outside contributions: https://github.com/devtools-html/debugger.html https://github.com/devtools-html/debugger.html
  - alphapapa 10y ago
    I mean, just look at the recent "3rd Generation bug" story here on HN, a bug which was originally reported by a man who is deceased, and is now affecting his grandchildren. There are plenty of 10-15 year-old bugs on Bugzilla. And we all know how Mozilla is fond of pulling the "advocacy" card and locking bug reports. "To the forums with you!" they say--where discussions can be ignored and deleted even more easily. On the recent discussion here about the Session Saver code, one Mozilla dev said that it needs rearchitecting, but that the issue is "manpower." I don't understand how a company that rakes in hundreds of millions of dollars per year can't afford to rewrite a problematic component--they had the manpower to write the bad design in the first place. Can they not afford to hire another programmer or two? Even now that they've cancelled FxOS? Where is the money going? And generally Mozilla is taking Firefox in a direction that loyal users--who have used Firefox for nearly two decades now!--do not want. Mozilla is chasing Chrome users, rather than maintaining Firefox's useful, unique features. They just don't get it: if people wanted to use Chrome, they'd use Chrome. If they turn Firefox into Chrome, there'll be no reason to use Firefox instead of Chrome. The handwriting is on the wall. Mozilla is no longer focused on making the best, most user-empowering browser. They are chasing ghosts, and when the money runs out...
throwaway2048 10y ago
chrome (the binary from google) is not open source, it bundles a ton of closed source code.
Mrat 10y ago
Last time I tried using Firefox i didn't liked it. But last week I completely moved from Chromium to Firefox. I didn't miss Chromium.
- rocky1138 10y ago
  Are you running the multiprocess Firefox build? The speed improvements with that version are insane.
  - 4ad 10y ago
    If only Firefox used a native GUI on the mac. I really don't like Safari. But I also value consistency: https://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/04/why-i-use-safari-instead-of-firefox/ https://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/04/why-i-use-safari-instead-of....
    - 8draco8 10y ago
      This is not SFW image!
      - 4ad 10y ago
        That is jws's website (not an image), a site I expect every HN member to be aware of.
    - throwaway41597 10y ago
      Warning, the first time my browser hit this link, it redirected to a NSFW image rant about HN. The second time it worked though. I suggest one copies and pastes the link to avoid sending the referrer.
      - 4ad 10y ago
        Hmm, interesting. I forgot jwz hates hackers news. However, I can't reproduce "the problem". I can click on it just fine. I don't think I am using any extension that blocks the referrer. In any case, I can't edit my old post. Sorry! Edit: ok, I can reproduce in an incognito window.
armitron 10y ago
Unfortunately for everyone that cares about security, using Firefox (or Safari or old IE) is a colossal mistake since it's orders of magnitude easier to exploit (with almost no serious anti-exploitation mitigations) than Chrome. Spidermonkey in particular (Firefox's Javascript engine) is laughably bad when it comes to vulnerabilities. This is also the reason why the Servo browser that some folks think will be a lot more secure (due to Rust) is mostly smoke & mirrors. They're planning to keep using Spidermonkey there too!
- om2 10y ago
  Firefox is much less secure than other modern browsers. And Chrome is indeed very secure. But I think it's incorrect to say that it's "orders of magnitude" more secure than Safari. This hasn't been true since Safari introduced multiprocess and sandboxing. Safari and Edge are closer to Chrome in security level than they are to Firefox. That's why pwn2own doesn't even include Firefox in the competition any more but does include Safari and Edge.
  - armitron 10y ago
    Agreed on Safari/Edge but note that I didn't use the words "very secure" to describe Chrome in isolation. How can something that gets publicly exploited year after year by _teenagers_ (1)(2) be called "very secure" ? The grim reality is that we never had a browser than can be called even remotely secure. Major factors for that are the implementation languages (C++ and C) and the vast attack surface. It's disheartening to see this trend continue. (1) http://www.tomsguide.com/us/pwn2own-browsers-2015,news-20680.html http://www.tomsguide.com/us/pwn2own-browsers-2015,news-20680... (2) http://blog.trendmicro.com/pwn2own-day-2-event-wrap/ http://blog.trendmicro.com/pwn2own-day-2-event-wrap/
    - pcwalton 10y ago
      > Major factors for that are the implementation languages (C++ and C) and the vast attack surface. It's disheartening to see this trend continue. You realize that there's only one browser which is starting to adopt alternative implementation languages, and it's not Chrome, right?
alphapapa 10y ago
I tend to agree with you: Firefox is definitely more user-focused than Chrome or Chromium. However, Firefox's user-centric development model has been declining for years now as Mozilla has grown and become accustomed to raking in hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Mozilla has been actively imitating Chrome for some time now. It is becoming less unique. Mozilla's future plans for Firefox continue to make it less like Firefox and more like Chromium. The coming changes to the addon APIs, deprecation of XPCOM/XUL, etc, will probably erase any useful distinction between Firefox and Chrome. Electrolysis, while nice in theory (because who isn't tired of the janky Firefox UI), will also probably erase Firefox's advantage in memory usage. It saddens me to say it, but Firefox needs to die and be reborn--the Phoenix needs to rise again from the ashes. Perhaps this has already happened in a sense with Pale Moon, although Pale Moon isn't even in Debian, so using it requires extra effort. But it won't really happen (Firefox dying/forking) until Mozilla hits rock bottom. Only when they are forced to confront their bloated bureaucracy and their lack of user-focus will any real change happen. It will require (near)bankruptcy, leadership change and many layoffs. And who knows if Firefox would even survive; it's so enormous and complex, would anyone pick up the pieces? Would a community effort even be able to? Anyway, we won't have to wait long to find out. The way Mozilla's going, I'd be surprised if they still exist in their current form in 3 years. Sad, but hey, Netscape died to give birth to Firefox, so maybe Mozilla's death will give birth to...Phoenix? (Can we use that name now, after all these years?)
- tracker1 10y ago
  XUL failed... and while I really appreciate what XUL (and even XULrunner) offered, nobody really used it much in practice. XPCOM while interesting wasn't very widely used either... Neither got traction outside the Mozilla sphere of software dev. I would actually love to see some more work on creating consistent extension APIs so that a single add-on is easier to write against the big 4. I know that FF is caving in favor of more Chrome like models in some places... In general it's sometimes because they are better models, and some because they are chasing chrome. In some ways Chrome actually is better in terms of UX... in others (configuration in particular) FF has been better. Mozilla has never been just Firefox though. They are an important part of web development... And I'm glad they're out there... I do think some people are holding onto how things were for the sake of resisting change, and likewise some are changing for the sake of. It's not just "the voice" of the community... it's millions of voices screaming for different things, and those stearing paying attention to the majority for most of them.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Pharylon 10y ago
I just wish Firefox for Android played nice with other apps. I mean, I like that it has AdBlock, but no, Firefox, I don't want to open that YouTube link in Firefox.
- Larrikin 10y ago
  Firefox includes the android app button in the URL bar for easily switching from Firefox.
  - yabatopia 10y ago
    Wow, thanks for the tip. I've been using Firefox on Android for years and never noticed that. I've immediately tried it out and it works fantastic. One more reason to keep on using Firefox!
  - Pharylon 10y ago
    I know. But I want to open it in the YouTube app in part because I live in a rural area with DSL. The YouTube app opens much faster. But that icon in the URL bar doesn't appear until the page is completely loaded. So it doesn't speed up the experience at all for me. I get to wait for the entire site to load in Firefox, then I get to wait for YouTube again once I click the button.
bobajeff 10y ago
I use Firefox on my phone. I am more comfortable with it for privacy reasons. It's a pretty nice browser outside of that. However I'm using a pretty beefy phone whereas when I used my Moto G it wasn't quite the best browser in terms of resources however a lot has changed since then. (Like Chrome no longer having tabs integrated into the task manager. That feature was great for devices with not too much RAM and horribly buggy firmware that would unload apps prematurely. It's also very convenient to use. Maybe could have used a little bit more refinement.) Also it's the only browser that supports my dusty old PCs. So I tend to use it on those as well. Thanks Firefox devs.
- tracker1 10y ago
  I loved the integrated tabs.. having to drag down (oops, not fast enough, try again) then a click and a swipe to close the tap instead of click/swipe alone... also it's just nasty after getting used to it... it's why I wish VS Code would go back to the pre-tab behavior, it was just so much better once you got used to it. I find that firefox is a little funky on Android though... the integration with lastpass is weird, have to copy/paste, at least site identification works now, there have been a few other oddities too... I notice a lot of sites improperly detect a lack of video support, or it may just be format that's the problem. I tend to like/use chrome and prefer it... but I do think there's been some weird behavior in/from google... just finding out about chrome apps being killed off irks me to no end, considering it's the first actually decent write once run everywhere option. I'm guessing the recent hangouts change was because of this, as they'll likely move to electron on the desktop. I'm glad Firefox is still an option though... I also appreciate what they've done to further the platform... Though I do chuckle a bit of how much easier web components, and even react might have come in if e4x had been implemented in other browsers.
  - bad_user 10y ago
    Personally I prefer Firefox on my Android, because it has plugins, like HTTPS Everywhere and uBlock Origin, without which a mobile browser is IMHO unusable. I also like the quick sharing actions, remembering the last 3 apps used for sharing. And the local search in your history it does, avoiding roundtrips to the search engine. Although to be fair this functionality appears to work better on the desktop. > the integration with lastpass is weird On Android the defacto standard for password managers is to use custom keyboards. Ironically, the custom keyboard I found most usable for this purpose has been Keepass2Android [1], precisely because if it loses focus it still remembers the last account selected and I've tried both Lastpass and 1Password. Along with KeeWeb on my desktop, it's way better than Lastpass imho and free. [1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=keepass2android.keepass2android&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=keepass2androi...
sowrabh 10y ago
My problem with using Firefox is the extensions. Though one of my faves is Firefox exclusive(Yes, Downthemall!), but some of the other useful extensions(like Google Dictionary and it's alternatives for Firefox are crap) are not available for Firefox and that often pulls me back to chrome after some time.
- Johan-bjareholt 10y ago
  For me its the opposite, vimperator is a lot better than vimium.
sergiotapia 10y ago
Firefox is unacceptably slugging and jittery on a brand new 27 inch iMac. Laughably slow and jittery. I would switch but it's just too slow and unresponsive. Opera, I would use but I don't trust the chinese parent company.
- rasz_pl 10y ago
  try Vivaldi, its run by ex Opera CEO. Pretty much like new Opera minus chinese/ad company.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
groby_b 10y ago
Since I work on Chromium, I kind of care about this... We're still an open source project. We still take a lot of external contributions, as far as I know. Can you point to concrete cases where Chromium has not taken contributions (without giving a good reason, that is)?
- fandango 10y ago
  It's probably hard to point out a specific case, but I think the biggest objection is that most Chromium developers have a tight connection with Google (if not employees anyway). They have mostly incentive to keep their employer happy. Google keeps the shareholders happy and they just want more money. (At the cost of privacy or open standards for example). Now this may be a simplified view, since this may apply to any company. However, Mozilla has some core principles they really try to stick to.
  - groby_b 10y ago
    It's a simplified view :) The team works really hard both on privacy and on open standards. But let's set that aside for a moment: There are many other companies contributing as well. (Opera, Samsung, Intel pop out when I just browse through the commit logs, but I'm sure I'm missing more). And you as an individual, are free to contribute as well. We welcome OSS devs who want to help make Chrome better. Send me a ping if you ever get stuck, should you choose to contribute. Yes, the project does not accept all changes. We can't, and no OSS project can. Some don't make sense ("Render all text blinking!" ;), some don't work for what the general idea for Chromium is ("Let's remove JS!"). But in general, the team tries to be accommodating when somebody wants to land a change. I can understand when people say "Hey, Mozilla aligns more with what I want, I'll contribute there". It's awesome. You should work on something you believe in, and I'm glad you've found a project that works for you. But Chromium is certainly happy to accept contributions, contrary to what the OP said.
nik736 10y ago
For me the idea of Firefox is nice. The problem is that Safari or Chrome are far superior in my opinion. I just checked out the dev tools of Firefox again and (again, in my opinion) nowadays Safari has the best dev tools and since I already bought in the apple eco system I don't mind sharing any info with them. Not so much with Google.
craigsmansion 10y ago
Chromium is Free Software as well. Mozilla is not a club of like-minded hackers that try to keep the web livable anymore. They're a large company now with corporate salaries and expensive furniture and a prime real estate office that values advertisers over users. Firefox is their money maker. Chromium is a Free Software version derived from a proprietary browser. The people who made that happen must have had an idealistic motivation, or otherwise it wouldn't exist. Both browsers are libre license-wise, which is a good thing, but in my opinion Chromium is less likely to be used as a marketing stick against users, since the marketing stick version of Chromium already exist. As such using the Chromium browser is preferable for me, since the intentions behind it are likely to be more in line with a free Internet in spite of its proprietary origin.
- gcp 10y ago
  There would be some truth to this if Chromium had a large non-Google developer community leading it along an independent course from Chrome. But that is, quite frankly, not the case.
- RandomlyGen 10y ago
  > Free Software version derived from a proprietary browser Chrome is based on Chromium, not the other way around. It's also pretty much Chrome with changed branding and no built-in Flash (thank god!) Thinking that google leaves Chromium alone or that it's somehow independent is naive.
  - craigsmansion 10y ago
    I'm afraid that's my clumsy phrasing. 1st Chrome release: 2008-09-02 1st Chromium release: Dec 17th, 2012 So even though current Chrome might be based on Chromium, Chromium was initially derived from Chrome. That means somewhere down the line someone at Google must have suggested making a free version, probably out of enthusiasm for open source, and even though it buys Google little, the project was okay'ed. I have no illusions about Chromium being independent, but as things are, Chromium development, in my opinion, is less commercially driven than Firefox development in spite of being a Google-driven project, allowing it to better serve its users with regards to freedom and the open web. The main danger of Google's involvement is if Chromium would somehow outpace Chrome deployments, and them pulling the plug, but that's still very far away. And even then, due to its libre license, everything is far from lost.
red_admiral 10y ago
One of the last? There's exactly two big ones, chromium and firefox. (Vivaldi looks promising but it's not quite there yet.)
LinuxFreedom 10y ago
Firefox violates user privacy since years by allowing long term tracking cookies to be saved by default without asking the user. Millions of Firefox users lost their privacy without ever being asked about that with the help of Firefox default settings. This long term collaboration with privacy-destroying ad tracking companies disqualifies Firefox as a privacy tool. BTW, yes, this post carries an unusual view of things, but no illegal content - do you believe unusual views should be censored?
- bad_user 10y ago
  > Firefox violates user privacy since years by allowing long term tracking cookies to be saved by default without asking the user. This statement doesn't make sense. All cookies can be tracking cookies and for example all session cookies are tracking cookies by definition. Assuming for the sake of argument that you're referring to third-party tracking cookies, such as those from Google Analytics, or Facebook, this is the default because it's how the web has always worked. And maybe changing this default is reasonable, much like how browsers started blocking popups at some point, but it's debatable if such actions should be taken or would benefit users. First of all, blocking third-party cookies by default might break web pages. But even more problematic is that this restriction can be bypassed, as to turn a third-party cookie into a first-party cookie publishers only need to inject some extra Javascript. Also meet http://samy.pl/evercookie/ http://samy.pl/evercookie/ - In other words, if you really want privacy, blocking third-party cookies isn't enough. Also Firefox is the only browser that does block trackers in Private Mode, without any plugins needed, a setting that you can also enable to be active all the time: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Privacy/Tracking.. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Privacy/Tracking.... > Millions of Firefox users lost their privacy without ever being asked about that with the help of Firefox default settings. This statement is factually not true, as it implies that blocking cookies has been the default and thus users had privacy to lose. > This long term collaboration with privacy-destroying ad tracking companies disqualifies Firefox as a privacy tool. Out of curiosity, when was the last time you contributed to the Mozilla organization? And if not, then you must have a better idea of how they should make a living, developing software in the open such that people can use it for free. They need a business model and nothing they did thus far had privacy implications for me. If you have a concrete example, I'd love to hear it. > BTW, yes, this post carries an unusual view of things, but no illegal content - do you believe unusual views should be censored? It's not an unusual view, it's just a silly one and silly views are quite common.

eth0up 10y ago

Any opinions on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Moon_%28web_browser%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Moon_%28web_browser%29 ?

JoshTriplett 10y ago
No good reason to run that instead of Firefox. It looks like their main motivation to fork was to preserve XUL and XPCOM, but since Firefox doesn't plan to keep those, almost no addons will continue using them; every maintained addon will update to work with current Firefox. And using an unmaintained addon is dangerous.
- criley2 10y ago
  >every maintained addon will update to work with current Firefox Those that can be will be, but I imagine entire categories, scores and scores of addons will be abandoned. So much of what people expect from Firefox addons is going away with no replacement in favor of basically light javascript web apps. Which is the point of the switch: dramatically reduce addon functionality in the interest of safety / security.
- superkuh 10y ago
  Except for Mozilla's policy of trying to making Firefox race Chrome to be the best browser for the lowest common denominator. You can't even edit your addons in Firefox anymore. They have to be signed by Mozilla. > And using an unmaintained addon is dangerous. And this is the kind of thinking I'm talking about. Firefore/Chrome/etc are all about protecting tech ignorants from themselves rather than allowing adept users to do what they want.
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    > And this is the kind of thinking I'm talking about. The kind of thinking that says "security-sensitive software with no active maintenance and regular updates is a security hole waiting to happen"? Letting users install and run unmaintained software is dangerous. They'll get exploited. (And they'll blame the browser for that, and rightfully so.) You can still do what you want; it's entirely possible to install local untrusted addons. You just have to poke some settings that are intentionally hidden from most end users, to make it somewhat more likely that users doing so understand the implications. And similarly, you can make your addon available to others willing to go through the same steps. They'll balk at doing so, and rightfully so.
    - chocolateboy 10y ago
      > it's entirely possible to install local untrusted addons. You just have to poke some settings that are intentionally hidden from most end users It's possible to install unsigned addons in ESR, developer and unbranded builds of Firefox. It's no longer possible to install them in the regular release or beta versions. The hidden setting was disabled in Firefox 48.
      - smsm42 10y ago
        I don't get this. I mean, it's ok to have an option to install untrusted code off by default. It's even OK to bury it somewhere in "advanced settings". But after that, I think you're done your due diligence in protecting me from myself, and anything beyond that is impeding, not protecting.
    - hlandau 10y ago
      >Letting users install and run unmaintained software is dangerous. Which is... exactly what Windows and Linux still do, rightly. >And they'll blame the browser for that, and rightfully so. Not at all rightfully so. Moreover the supposed security gain from this is absurd. So a user can't accidentally install a malicious extension... but they can install malicious software. Which, being that it has full access to the system, could patch Firefox if it liked to disable the signing check. I won't use a browser which implements restrictive code signing practices.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  > And using an unmaintained addon is dangerous. Who says the addons have to be unmaintained? https://github.com/Pale-Moon-Addons-Team https://github.com/Pale-Moon-Addons-Team And look man, a lot of addons don't need to be "maintained," they just keep working. An addon that adds a button to the UI or something like that--it doesn't need to be constantly churned. Something like NoScript and ad-blocking addons need more attention, but a lot of very useful addons that let users customize their browser will continue working as long as the underlying APIs do. So please lay off the scary language. Better be careful, when the Pale Moon comes out, addons become "dangerous"! :P
vocatus_gate 10y ago
I've been using Pale Moon for a few years now and really like it. Faster than Firefox, many of the obnoxious elements of the new UI pared down or stripped out, and binary-compatible with almost all Firefox extensions. Give it a shot and see if you like it.

JoshTriplett 10y ago

While I agree that people should pay more attention to Firefox, it is possible for anyone to contribute to Chromium, and many people do.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

I would love to. But as a recent and former Firefox user, the performance just wasn't there. Both Edge and Chrome are significantly faster. I'm hoping electrolysis helps greatly in this regard. I'll be happy to switch back.

quickben 10y ago
Just out of curiosity, what are you using the browser for that one is noticeably slower than the other?
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  Just general web browsing. The big hindrance was that combined thread for UI and rendering. For example, the old version of Google+ had an average page load time of twelve seconds. During that time, Firefox's entire UI would seize (Windows would mark it as "Not responding" until the page load completed.) You couldn't even go look at another tab or something in the meantime.
- the_duke 10y ago
  Chrome just feels considerably faster. Page transitions, time to render, fast JS engine. Firefox just feels clunky in comparison, sadly.

sunnyps 10y ago

Why do you say that it's not easy to contribute to Chromium? Also the "last truly open-source" browser is hyperbolic given that Chromium is both open-source and is also developed in the open[1][2][3]. If anything over the past few years it has become more open-source as many components have been upstreamed (e.g. pdfium, android/ios stuff, etc.) [1] Chromium bug tracker: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list [2] Chromium code reviews: https://codereview.chromium.org/ https://codereview.chromium.org/ [3] Chromium development mailing lists: https://www.chromium.org/developers/technical-discussion-groups https://www.chromium.org/developers/technical-discussion-gro...

hgf888 10y ago
It doesn't matter if it's open source - it's an issue of trust. Firefox has never secretly downloaded binary blobs in the background which listen to my microphone without my permission or knowledge.[1] Chromium lost all my trust that day, even if none of my private conversations/data made it to Google that particular time. [1] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=500922 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=500922
- tomjakubowski 10y ago
  It certainly matters with respect to the point that the top level commenter was making.
- mortehu 10y ago
  The fact that it had the ability to listen to audio shouldn't be the issue, since it wouldn't do that unless you explicitly enabled it. Your grammar is kind of ambiguous there. Certainly it was downloaded without permission, but it wasn't listening without permission. Any web page can listen to your microphone if you allow it to, and the code for it can be downloaded without your consent, even if you have JavaScript disabled, if it's embedded in the HTML code.
  - RubyPinch 10y ago

a3_nm 10y ago

I agree with your claim, but I don't think it is a good idea to claim that Chromium is not "truly open-source" because (you claim) it is hard to contribute. This may cause more confusion about what "open source" really means. In fact, it's perfectly OK for open-source software to refuse outside contributions altogether! (Aka the "cathedral" model, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar#.22The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar.22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar#....) In other words, open-source software maintainers are under no obligation to accept outside contributions. The only freedom you are guaranteed in this respect is the freedom to start a fork.

fowlerpower 10y ago

I second this opinion. I think Chrome has a lot of interesting parts from a technological perspective. However, I think Firefox as an organization has done more for JavaScript and that community as far as fostering an open environment than any other browser maker. So providing a good browser plus fostering and growing the development community are both great things. Another advantage is that it is not tied to some large conglomerate that is now engaged in questionable practices. That you need to rip entire parts of the code base out in this manner. This sort of thing has never been a concern with Firefox. In general I think people ought to look at Google much more skeptically than they used to and all of the technologies that they push for. They all in some way push their agenda forward.

sverige 10y ago
> In general I think people ought to look at Google much more skeptically than they used to and all of the technologies that they push for. They all in some way push their agenda forward. I've been skeptical of Google for a long time, and quit using them as much as possible since they rolled out "Don't be evil." Talk about telegraphing the punch.
- fowlerpower 10y ago
  It's funny how corporate marketing works. For a long time I used to really love their products and their processes. Maybe it was when they got rid of "don't be evil" but at some point they started turning into just another corporation. A corporation with a ton of resources and a ton of people's information. Anyway I don't want to go into a rant but lately everything they do even the open source stuff is just to further their agenda and seldom to help the community.
  - nixos 10y ago
    As far as I remember, it was around when Google+ came out. Google started as a technology company for nerds. Remember when Google broke all "rules" when their website was a simple image, input, and two buttons? Then they were into open standards, tech innovation, and where the company was run by engineers, and not media people (see Yahoo). The result was a focus on UX and not design. Unfortunately, around when Google+ came out, they decided they're done with that, and became a "company for the masses". XMPP integration - dead Open Source apps - dead They're back to bloat (just JS instead of animated GIFs and Flash), "beauty" over "UX", closed source apps (remember when most apps put out by Google were open source? Remember the shock that Picasso wasn't?)

trollian 10y ago

Have you ever tried contributing to Firefox from outside Mozilla Corp? My experience was not positive.

callahad 10y ago
Could you please tell me more about your experience? The core Firefox / Gecko repos can be a bit conservative and slow to accept patches, but subprojects like Firefox Accounts / Sync, Devtools, Rust / Servo, browser.html, TestPilot, etc. tend have much lower friction while still affecting the direction of Firefox. As an example, we recently replaced the JavaScript debugger with one written in HTML instead of XUL, using React, etc. All on GitHub and super accessible to outside contributions: https://github.com/devtools-html/debugger.html https://github.com/devtools-html/debugger.html
- alphapapa 10y ago
  I mean, just look at the recent "3rd Generation bug" story here on HN, a bug which was originally reported by a man who is deceased, and is now affecting his grandchildren. There are plenty of 10-15 year-old bugs on Bugzilla. And we all know how Mozilla is fond of pulling the "advocacy" card and locking bug reports. "To the forums with you!" they say--where discussions can be ignored and deleted even more easily. On the recent discussion here about the Session Saver code, one Mozilla dev said that it needs rearchitecting, but that the issue is "manpower." I don't understand how a company that rakes in hundreds of millions of dollars per year can't afford to rewrite a problematic component--they had the manpower to write the bad design in the first place. Can they not afford to hire another programmer or two? Even now that they've cancelled FxOS? Where is the money going? And generally Mozilla is taking Firefox in a direction that loyal users--who have used Firefox for nearly two decades now!--do not want. Mozilla is chasing Chrome users, rather than maintaining Firefox's useful, unique features. They just don't get it: if people wanted to use Chrome, they'd use Chrome. If they turn Firefox into Chrome, there'll be no reason to use Firefox instead of Chrome. The handwriting is on the wall. Mozilla is no longer focused on making the best, most user-empowering browser. They are chasing ghosts, and when the money runs out...

throwaway2048 10y ago

chrome (the binary from google) is not open source, it bundles a ton of closed source code.

Mrat 10y ago

Last time I tried using Firefox i didn't liked it. But last week I completely moved from Chromium to Firefox. I didn't miss Chromium.

rocky1138 10y ago
Are you running the multiprocess Firefox build? The speed improvements with that version are insane.
- 4ad 10y ago
  If only Firefox used a native GUI on the mac. I really don't like Safari. But I also value consistency: https://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/04/why-i-use-safari-instead-of-firefox/ https://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/04/why-i-use-safari-instead-of....
  - 8draco8 10y ago
    This is not SFW image!
    - 4ad 10y ago
      That is jws's website (not an image), a site I expect every HN member to be aware of.
  - throwaway41597 10y ago
    Warning, the first time my browser hit this link, it redirected to a NSFW image rant about HN. The second time it worked though. I suggest one copies and pastes the link to avoid sending the referrer.
    - 4ad 10y ago
      Hmm, interesting. I forgot jwz hates hackers news. However, I can't reproduce "the problem". I can click on it just fine. I don't think I am using any extension that blocks the referrer. In any case, I can't edit my old post. Sorry! Edit: ok, I can reproduce in an incognito window.

armitron 10y ago

Unfortunately for everyone that cares about security, using Firefox (or Safari or old IE) is a colossal mistake since it's orders of magnitude easier to exploit (with almost no serious anti-exploitation mitigations) than Chrome. Spidermonkey in particular (Firefox's Javascript engine) is laughably bad when it comes to vulnerabilities. This is also the reason why the Servo browser that some folks think will be a lot more secure (due to Rust) is mostly smoke & mirrors. They're planning to keep using Spidermonkey there too!

om2 10y ago
Firefox is much less secure than other modern browsers. And Chrome is indeed very secure. But I think it's incorrect to say that it's "orders of magnitude" more secure than Safari. This hasn't been true since Safari introduced multiprocess and sandboxing. Safari and Edge are closer to Chrome in security level than they are to Firefox. That's why pwn2own doesn't even include Firefox in the competition any more but does include Safari and Edge.
- armitron 10y ago
  Agreed on Safari/Edge but note that I didn't use the words "very secure" to describe Chrome in isolation. How can something that gets publicly exploited year after year by _teenagers_ (1)(2) be called "very secure" ? The grim reality is that we never had a browser than can be called even remotely secure. Major factors for that are the implementation languages (C++ and C) and the vast attack surface. It's disheartening to see this trend continue. (1) http://www.tomsguide.com/us/pwn2own-browsers-2015,news-20680.html http://www.tomsguide.com/us/pwn2own-browsers-2015,news-20680... (2) http://blog.trendmicro.com/pwn2own-day-2-event-wrap/ http://blog.trendmicro.com/pwn2own-day-2-event-wrap/
  - pcwalton 10y ago
    > Major factors for that are the implementation languages (C++ and C) and the vast attack surface. It's disheartening to see this trend continue. You realize that there's only one browser which is starting to adopt alternative implementation languages, and it's not Chrome, right?

alphapapa 10y ago

I tend to agree with you: Firefox is definitely more user-focused than Chrome or Chromium. However, Firefox's user-centric development model has been declining for years now as Mozilla has grown and become accustomed to raking in hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Mozilla has been actively imitating Chrome for some time now. It is becoming less unique. Mozilla's future plans for Firefox continue to make it less like Firefox and more like Chromium. The coming changes to the addon APIs, deprecation of XPCOM/XUL, etc, will probably erase any useful distinction between Firefox and Chrome. Electrolysis, while nice in theory (because who isn't tired of the janky Firefox UI), will also probably erase Firefox's advantage in memory usage. It saddens me to say it, but Firefox needs to die and be reborn--the Phoenix needs to rise again from the ashes. Perhaps this has already happened in a sense with Pale Moon, although Pale Moon isn't even in Debian, so using it requires extra effort. But it won't really happen (Firefox dying/forking) until Mozilla hits rock bottom. Only when they are forced to confront their bloated bureaucracy and their lack of user-focus will any real change happen. It will require (near)bankruptcy, leadership change and many layoffs. And who knows if Firefox would even survive; it's so enormous and complex, would anyone pick up the pieces? Would a community effort even be able to? Anyway, we won't have to wait long to find out. The way Mozilla's going, I'd be surprised if they still exist in their current form in 3 years. Sad, but hey, Netscape died to give birth to Firefox, so maybe Mozilla's death will give birth to...Phoenix? (Can we use that name now, after all these years?)

tracker1 10y ago
XUL failed... and while I really appreciate what XUL (and even XULrunner) offered, nobody really used it much in practice. XPCOM while interesting wasn't very widely used either... Neither got traction outside the Mozilla sphere of software dev. I would actually love to see some more work on creating consistent extension APIs so that a single add-on is easier to write against the big 4. I know that FF is caving in favor of more Chrome like models in some places... In general it's sometimes because they are better models, and some because they are chasing chrome. In some ways Chrome actually is better in terms of UX... in others (configuration in particular) FF has been better. Mozilla has never been just Firefox though. They are an important part of web development... And I'm glad they're out there... I do think some people are holding onto how things were for the sake of resisting change, and likewise some are changing for the sake of. It's not just "the voice" of the community... it's millions of voices screaming for different things, and those stearing paying attention to the majority for most of them.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Pharylon 10y ago

I just wish Firefox for Android played nice with other apps. I mean, I like that it has AdBlock, but no, Firefox, I don't want to open that YouTube link in Firefox.

Larrikin 10y ago
Firefox includes the android app button in the URL bar for easily switching from Firefox.
- yabatopia 10y ago
  Wow, thanks for the tip. I've been using Firefox on Android for years and never noticed that. I've immediately tried it out and it works fantastic. One more reason to keep on using Firefox!
- Pharylon 10y ago
  I know. But I want to open it in the YouTube app in part because I live in a rural area with DSL. The YouTube app opens much faster. But that icon in the URL bar doesn't appear until the page is completely loaded. So it doesn't speed up the experience at all for me. I get to wait for the entire site to load in Firefox, then I get to wait for YouTube again once I click the button.

bobajeff 10y ago

I use Firefox on my phone. I am more comfortable with it for privacy reasons. It's a pretty nice browser outside of that. However I'm using a pretty beefy phone whereas when I used my Moto G it wasn't quite the best browser in terms of resources however a lot has changed since then. (Like Chrome no longer having tabs integrated into the task manager. That feature was great for devices with not too much RAM and horribly buggy firmware that would unload apps prematurely. It's also very convenient to use. Maybe could have used a little bit more refinement.) Also it's the only browser that supports my dusty old PCs. So I tend to use it on those as well. Thanks Firefox devs.

tracker1 10y ago
I loved the integrated tabs.. having to drag down (oops, not fast enough, try again) then a click and a swipe to close the tap instead of click/swipe alone... also it's just nasty after getting used to it... it's why I wish VS Code would go back to the pre-tab behavior, it was just so much better once you got used to it. I find that firefox is a little funky on Android though... the integration with lastpass is weird, have to copy/paste, at least site identification works now, there have been a few other oddities too... I notice a lot of sites improperly detect a lack of video support, or it may just be format that's the problem. I tend to like/use chrome and prefer it... but I do think there's been some weird behavior in/from google... just finding out about chrome apps being killed off irks me to no end, considering it's the first actually decent write once run everywhere option. I'm guessing the recent hangouts change was because of this, as they'll likely move to electron on the desktop. I'm glad Firefox is still an option though... I also appreciate what they've done to further the platform... Though I do chuckle a bit of how much easier web components, and even react might have come in if e4x had been implemented in other browsers.
- bad_user 10y ago
  Personally I prefer Firefox on my Android, because it has plugins, like HTTPS Everywhere and uBlock Origin, without which a mobile browser is IMHO unusable. I also like the quick sharing actions, remembering the last 3 apps used for sharing. And the local search in your history it does, avoiding roundtrips to the search engine. Although to be fair this functionality appears to work better on the desktop. > the integration with lastpass is weird On Android the defacto standard for password managers is to use custom keyboards. Ironically, the custom keyboard I found most usable for this purpose has been Keepass2Android [1], precisely because if it loses focus it still remembers the last account selected and I've tried both Lastpass and 1Password. Along with KeeWeb on my desktop, it's way better than Lastpass imho and free. [1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=keepass2android.keepass2android&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=keepass2androi...

sowrabh 10y ago

My problem with using Firefox is the extensions. Though one of my faves is Firefox exclusive(Yes, Downthemall!), but some of the other useful extensions(like Google Dictionary and it's alternatives for Firefox are crap) are not available for Firefox and that often pulls me back to chrome after some time.

Johan-bjareholt 10y ago
For me its the opposite, vimperator is a lot better than vimium.

sergiotapia 10y ago

Firefox is unacceptably slugging and jittery on a brand new 27 inch iMac. Laughably slow and jittery. I would switch but it's just too slow and unresponsive. Opera, I would use but I don't trust the chinese parent company.

rasz_pl 10y ago
try Vivaldi, its run by ex Opera CEO. Pretty much like new Opera minus chinese/ad company.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

groby_b 10y ago

Since I work on Chromium, I kind of care about this... We're still an open source project. We still take a lot of external contributions, as far as I know. Can you point to concrete cases where Chromium has not taken contributions (without giving a good reason, that is)?

fandango 10y ago
It's probably hard to point out a specific case, but I think the biggest objection is that most Chromium developers have a tight connection with Google (if not employees anyway). They have mostly incentive to keep their employer happy. Google keeps the shareholders happy and they just want more money. (At the cost of privacy or open standards for example). Now this may be a simplified view, since this may apply to any company. However, Mozilla has some core principles they really try to stick to.
- groby_b 10y ago
  It's a simplified view :) The team works really hard both on privacy and on open standards. But let's set that aside for a moment: There are many other companies contributing as well. (Opera, Samsung, Intel pop out when I just browse through the commit logs, but I'm sure I'm missing more). And you as an individual, are free to contribute as well. We welcome OSS devs who want to help make Chrome better. Send me a ping if you ever get stuck, should you choose to contribute. Yes, the project does not accept all changes. We can't, and no OSS project can. Some don't make sense ("Render all text blinking!" ;), some don't work for what the general idea for Chromium is ("Let's remove JS!"). But in general, the team tries to be accommodating when somebody wants to land a change. I can understand when people say "Hey, Mozilla aligns more with what I want, I'll contribute there". It's awesome. You should work on something you believe in, and I'm glad you've found a project that works for you. But Chromium is certainly happy to accept contributions, contrary to what the OP said.

nik736 10y ago

For me the idea of Firefox is nice. The problem is that Safari or Chrome are far superior in my opinion. I just checked out the dev tools of Firefox again and (again, in my opinion) nowadays Safari has the best dev tools and since I already bought in the apple eco system I don't mind sharing any info with them. Not so much with Google.

craigsmansion 10y ago

Chromium is Free Software as well. Mozilla is not a club of like-minded hackers that try to keep the web livable anymore. They're a large company now with corporate salaries and expensive furniture and a prime real estate office that values advertisers over users. Firefox is their money maker. Chromium is a Free Software version derived from a proprietary browser. The people who made that happen must have had an idealistic motivation, or otherwise it wouldn't exist. Both browsers are libre license-wise, which is a good thing, but in my opinion Chromium is less likely to be used as a marketing stick against users, since the marketing stick version of Chromium already exist. As such using the Chromium browser is preferable for me, since the intentions behind it are likely to be more in line with a free Internet in spite of its proprietary origin.

gcp 10y ago
There would be some truth to this if Chromium had a large non-Google developer community leading it along an independent course from Chrome. But that is, quite frankly, not the case.
RandomlyGen 10y ago
> Free Software version derived from a proprietary browser Chrome is based on Chromium, not the other way around. It's also pretty much Chrome with changed branding and no built-in Flash (thank god!) Thinking that google leaves Chromium alone or that it's somehow independent is naive.
- craigsmansion 10y ago
  I'm afraid that's my clumsy phrasing. 1st Chrome release: 2008-09-02 1st Chromium release: Dec 17th, 2012 So even though current Chrome might be based on Chromium, Chromium was initially derived from Chrome. That means somewhere down the line someone at Google must have suggested making a free version, probably out of enthusiasm for open source, and even though it buys Google little, the project was okay'ed. I have no illusions about Chromium being independent, but as things are, Chromium development, in my opinion, is less commercially driven than Firefox development in spite of being a Google-driven project, allowing it to better serve its users with regards to freedom and the open web. The main danger of Google's involvement is if Chromium would somehow outpace Chrome deployments, and them pulling the plug, but that's still very far away. And even then, due to its libre license, everything is far from lost.

red_admiral 10y ago

One of the last? There's exactly two big ones, chromium and firefox. (Vivaldi looks promising but it's not quite there yet.)

LinuxFreedom 10y ago

Firefox violates user privacy since years by allowing long term tracking cookies to be saved by default without asking the user. Millions of Firefox users lost their privacy without ever being asked about that with the help of Firefox default settings. This long term collaboration with privacy-destroying ad tracking companies disqualifies Firefox as a privacy tool. BTW, yes, this post carries an unusual view of things, but no illegal content - do you believe unusual views should be censored?

bad_user 10y ago
> Firefox violates user privacy since years by allowing long term tracking cookies to be saved by default without asking the user. This statement doesn't make sense. All cookies can be tracking cookies and for example all session cookies are tracking cookies by definition. Assuming for the sake of argument that you're referring to third-party tracking cookies, such as those from Google Analytics, or Facebook, this is the default because it's how the web has always worked. And maybe changing this default is reasonable, much like how browsers started blocking popups at some point, but it's debatable if such actions should be taken or would benefit users. First of all, blocking third-party cookies by default might break web pages. But even more problematic is that this restriction can be bypassed, as to turn a third-party cookie into a first-party cookie publishers only need to inject some extra Javascript. Also meet http://samy.pl/evercookie/ http://samy.pl/evercookie/ - In other words, if you really want privacy, blocking third-party cookies isn't enough. Also Firefox is the only browser that does block trackers in Private Mode, without any plugins needed, a setting that you can also enable to be active all the time: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Privacy/Tracking.. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Privacy/Tracking.... > Millions of Firefox users lost their privacy without ever being asked about that with the help of Firefox default settings. This statement is factually not true, as it implies that blocking cookies has been the default and thus users had privacy to lose. > This long term collaboration with privacy-destroying ad tracking companies disqualifies Firefox as a privacy tool. Out of curiosity, when was the last time you contributed to the Mozilla organization? And if not, then you must have a better idea of how they should make a living, developing software in the open such that people can use it for free. They need a business model and nothing they did thus far had privacy implications for me. If you have a concrete example, I'd love to hear it. > BTW, yes, this post carries an unusual view of things, but no illegal content - do you believe unusual views should be censored? It's not an unusual view, it's just a silly one and silly views are quite common.