10 ms·

Why do you use Firefox?

61 points by e15ctr0n 10y ago

iSnow 10y ago
Goodwill, as I like Mozilla much more than Google. I kind of dislike the Chrome UI, but that's a minor point. A lot of FF is hare-brained, though. E10S solved the unresponsive UI for me, but for the life of me, I don't know how to enable it on my touchscreen Dell. There is no indicator in preferences that tells me whether it is on or off and no button to simply force it. Javascript-heavy websites tend to burn through the CPU of my Macbook Air, but I don't know how to throttle background tabs. Or at least profile which tab gobbles my cycles. About:performance is not that helpful. Ideally, there would be some indicator if a background tab eats more than x% CPU.
- tomne 10y ago
  `about:support` will tell you if the multiprocess windows are activated, depending on the add-ons you are using.
- vetinari 10y ago
  The E10S indication is probably not supposed to be user visible. You can check it though: Go to about:support page and in the first page, check the Multiprocess Windows row.
  - rys 10y ago
    And for those that look at about:support and see it's disabled for some reason (an add-on you use doesn't play nice with it is the common thing), you should install an add-on called Add-on Compatibility Reporter, to tell you which one is causing you issues.
- duckmuck 10y ago
  I spoke with a Firefox dev, I was told that due to accessibility settings, multithreading with touchscreens wouldn't come until the current Beta build is released to stable. Technically it should already work on the beta build but it doesn't seem to work for me.
  - cpeterso 10y ago
    AFAIK, accessibility support, including touchscreens, should be enabled in Firefox Beta 52 now: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis#Schedule https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis#Schedule In the meantime, you can force Firefox to enable multiprocess, even if you have a touchscreen by creating a new about:config pref "browser.tabs.remote.force-enable" = true.
yegle 10y ago
Pentadactyl beats most of Chrome's vim-like keybinding extensions.
- oftenwrong 10y ago
  I use Pentadactyl, but cvim for Chrome, a relative newcomer, is also very good.
Rekaiden 10y ago
It's not Chrome.
teovall 10y ago
Tree Style Tabs is the only reason left for me at this point.
- blfr 10y ago
  We may be the 1% or some other fringe but this is also my reason. Except for the UI, Chrome is generally ahead. It's not insulting to Firefox contributors. Competing with Google is hard.
  - gnicholas 10y ago
    I came here to make sure that Tree Style Tabs was represented, and I see that it's already been mentioned several times. Why wouldn't Chrome build this in? It seems like they could grab a decent number of power users that way — and presumably make some of their other users happy along the way. I will note, however, that because of TST on Firefox, I keep way more tabs open there than in Chrome (20x, I'd guess). Based on the few times when I've had more than 15 or 20 tabs open on Chrome, I could imagine that it would bog down most machines. Perhaps they're not building it in because it would encourage people to browse with many tabs open, which would suck up lots of memory?
    - seba_dos1 10y ago
      I can imagine that's the case. Chrome with just moderate number of tabs open (under 100) already becomes unusable, both from UI and performance perspective, while Firefox many times worked fine for me with thousands.
- CroCroCro 10y ago
  https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sidewise-tree-style-tabs/biiammgklaefagjclmnlialkmaemifgo https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sidewise-tree-styl... or https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tabs-outliner/eggkanocgddhmamlbiijnphhppkpkmkl https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tabs-outliner/eggk...
malnourish 10y ago
For me it's a combination of extensions and philosophy. Philosophy is pretty clear, but extensions that I find necessary are: Tree Style Tabs (Chrome does not have a good replacement, I've tried them all) DownThemAll LastPass with better functionality Mouse gestures (this is HUGE for me, I want to be able to lazily browse with my mouse when I please, open/close and switch tabs with just a right-click and a flick)
- severine 10y ago
  The Tree Style Tabs author is quite active[1]. I knew, he had a really great, and funny, site[2] for XUL lovers out there. I was about to make a snarky comment about how filthy rich should he be, based on how TST is always praised everywhere, so I went to look for a donation button to link to my planned snarky comment. I didn't find any donations button, so I dug a bit more and found this[3]: 'I am an incumbent IT engineer, but apart from my company's work, I'm serializing articles in the manga format entitled "Cis Tube Girls" in the monthly magazine on Linux related technology called Nikkei Linux.' Seriously, check this comic: http://system-admin-girl.com/about/ http://system-admin-girl.com/about/ I love Firefox, Tree Style Tabs, Google Translate, and the Internetcetera. I love you Piro, thanks!!! [1] https://github.com/piroor https://github.com/piroor [2] http://piro.sakura.ne.jp/xul/xul.html.en http://piro.sakura.ne.jp/xul/xul.html.en [3] https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpiro.sakura.ne.jp%2Flatest%2F&edit-text=&act=url https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...
campuscodi 10y ago
Because it's not owned by Google. That's why!
- mybrid 10y ago
  Agreed!
- aagd 10y ago
  +1
gogoengie 10y ago
Tree Style Tabs
- CroCroCro 10y ago
  https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sidewise-tree-style-tabs/biiammgklaefagjclmnlialkmaemifgo https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sidewise-tree-styl... or https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tabs-outliner/eggkanocgddhmamlbiijnphhppkpkmkl https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tabs-outliner/eggk...
  - malnourish 10y ago
    Unfortunately those replacements just don't cut it. They're too separate. Tree Style Tabs is irreplaceable for me.
  - aesthetics1 10y ago
    Unfortunately these are tree style tabs in a separate window. Bad UX in my opinion.
  - gogoengie 10y ago
    Thanks for the suggestions, and last year I dedicated a six month trial to using those "separate-window" implementations in Chrome, but I'm very sorry to say they remained clumsy. I group my work into topics by desktop; one browser instance per desktop, with an average total of 200+ tabs across eight windows. Restarting Firefox means sorting eight browser instances, one hotkey to snap them to half-width. Restarting Chrome required sorting sixteen browser windows, then manually aligning each primary window plus its tab window using the mouse. I tried, I really did, but that never became less of a pain.
clock_tower 10y ago
NoScript and uBlock Origin, both running at once, for an almost completely ad-free Web.
- aesthetics1 10y ago
  Is this not available under Chrome for some reason? Or was it not available when you made your switch (or original browser choice)?
  - clock_tower 10y ago
    NoScript is mentioned in the article as not being available on Chrome, and I've heard that Chrome ad-blockers still show ads. Google being an ad company, I wouldn't expect them to allow particularly thorough ad-blocking.
    - jordsta 10y ago
      I'm not one to defend Chrome, but the functionality of uBlock Origin you get on Firefox is the exact same as what you get on Chrome. Same filters available and everything. If you still see an ad in Chrome with uBlock Origin installed, it's likely that the filters haven't updated to block that particular ad yet. Moreover, you'd likely see the same ad when browsing with the equivalent Firefox.
      - clock_tower 10y ago
        That's true enough; but uBlock Origin is my second line of defense -- the main one is NoScript. It requires quite a bit of savvy to navigate modern websites that way, but if you can work it out it's pretty powerful.
johnchristopher 10y ago
- not owned by a corp - I am used to the way the software feels (the way it hangs up or freezes... but at work I use Google Chrome because of the proxy and being used to it in that specific place it's firefox I can't stand... with the exception of the company issued laptop on which I installed firefox (no proxy)). Psychosomatic ? Very much, yes. - free software - I like the logo and the name (I am a minotaur and phoenix early adopter and moz before that) - I think they are good people and were there when I (as a user) needed them. I know chrome or IE is there to suck out my soul and my data (yuck).
- cpeterso 10y ago
  > I am a minotaur and phoenix early adopter and moz before that Interesting, I had never heard of Mozilla Minotaur before. I can't find many details online, other than it was a new mail client before Phoenix was renamed Firefox. Was Minotaur an early version of Thunderbird?
  - johnchristopher 10y ago
    Yes, Minotaur was the name of the project to make a stand alone mail client out of the Mozilla suite. http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/2190891/Mozillas+Phoenix+Minotaur+Get+New+Names.htm http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/2190891/Moz... https://tech.slashdot.org/story/03/03/26/055232/new-mozilla-based-mail-client-minotaur https://tech.slashdot.org/story/03/03/26/055232/new-mozilla-...
coldpie 10y ago
It's not owned by an advertising company, and it's the only full-featured browser I'm aware of that has great ad blocking on Android.
- mattbee 10y ago
  100% the same - Chrome might be the faster browser, but it doesn't matter when it's hobbled with ads. I imagine that's even more significant when you have an older phone.
threepipeproblm 10y ago
I think the argument misses the point. Most of the people who are using Firefox without extensions are doing so because someone who likes the freedom of the browser -- including the ability to run all current extensions -- suggested it. >> In fact it's insulting to all those contributors who work so hard on Firefox to say that extensions are the only thing keeping them from switching to Chrome. The ability to run extensions is just the most popular manifestation of a browser that has always valued user freedom. So my question is, why are they stopping with that mentality? Why blame the victims of such a poor decision? Taking away my option to use extensions seems like the insulting choice to me.
- kibwen 10y ago
  > why are they stopping with that mentality? Because, in practice, officially giving unfettered access to Firefox's internals to third-party developers makes changing anything in the Firefox codebase a potential quagmire. It's taken five or six years for electrolysis to begin seeing the light of day, and that's because such a drastic rearchitecture of the browser ended up breaking basically every popular addon in the wild. In the meantime, the inability to evolve the browser has hampered its ability to compete with Chrome, whose deliberately-specified addons API leaves it with no such baggage. Not to mention that the greater scope of Firefox addons has more severe implications for user security, which means that Mozilla has to spend resources to further vet every addon on AMO, which leads to even more complaints at the sluggishness of the apparent bureaucracy. Addons were absolutely a great way to differentiate Firefox from IE back in the day, but in the context of modern web browsing having such a free-for-all addons interface is a lose-lose proposition. It's absolutely a shame, but the market of browser users has been inexorably making this decision for years now.
  - threepipeproblm 10y ago
    That was well said. But at the end of the day doesn't it remain an argument that users shouldn't be able to run the extensions that have been freely available, aka "we know better than you." Breaking Firefox to turn it into the browser they wished they had made will be disastrous, I'm afraid. It seems to me there are any number of "middle paths" (or dual paths) that Mozilla could take, but they don't want to do anything to jeopardize their consolidated user base.
mybrid 10y ago
No processes. No hangouts. No index service started without asking. Chrome on Windows is a pig. Back when I was using it then nonstop then 25% of CPU usage was pegged to Chrome. I gave up trying to manage Chrome and switched to Firefox. Recently Firefox said they were moving away from threads to processes. I think that's a mistake. Killing Chrome was a pain at times because when it does hang all the child processes had to be killed independently. It was possible to restart Chrome with orphaned processes. What a mess. Also, I like the implementation of profiles in Firefox much better. I have a different profile for work, home and various side jobs. Very nice. Chrome developers are crap developers and they hide behind processes because they don't have the chops to do threads. I hate to see Firefox move in that direction. Maybe Firefox needs to since Firefox is adopting Chrome extensions. But I refuse to use Chrome because it has crappy performance and usability. Hopefully Firefox doesn't move in the same direction.
- nextos 10y ago
  I love Firefox because it's like the Emacs of browsers [1]. It's self-discoverable, it can be scripted and it has dozens of wonderful extensions. To me, dropping their plugin architecture to achieve compatibility with Chrome is a bit absurd. Vimperator, GreaseMonkey and many others make Firefox unique. [1] I know there's Conkeror, but the project seems to have stalled.
  - yellowapple 10y ago
    Not only has Conkeror stalled, but scrapping XUL is a surefire way to murder it in cold blood. The only option going forward would be to rewrite it as an alternate browser that uses Gecko and/or Servo as the engine. My hope is that the move to WebExtensions will actually help here. Currently, Conkeror is theoretically compatible with Firefox extension-wise, but it often meant writing a bunch of glue code to expose Firefox extension functionality without Firefox' actual UI. Now that extensions are forced to be UI agnostic, it seems reasonable that a browser that's Firefox-compatible could have a much easier time with that. Hopefully a post-XUL Firefox will continue to support something along the basic lines of XULRunner (i.e. present a Firefox window without the actual UI) to make that easier than having to fork Firefox itself.
zlynx 10y ago
From habit, and to do my part keeping the Web from becoming a single-vendor standard. I also use Edge on my Surface tablet, for the same reasons.
bobajeff 10y ago
I use it because it's the only browser that supports my old computer.
TheCapn 10y ago
Generally speaking, I use Firefox because I've always used Firefox. At no point have they ever done something that's made me upset enough with my browsing experience to jump platforms entirely. It's familiar, it has the extensions I need and it hasn't buggered up in any significant way that I uninstalled it from frustration.
- cesarb 10y ago
  It's the same for me: I've used it since it was Netscape 2. I've used the single-digit Mozilla milestones (the ones that crashed if you opened more than one window, or if you looked at them funny). I've survived the "flamey bird renaming" era. I'm simply used to the way it works. Yes, it has changed, but any change has been gradual. Also, on Android it has the uBlock Origin extension, which with its ability (in advanced mode) to block images and Javascript helps keep the data consumption low (and make the sites load faster).
- epoch1970 10y ago
  It's a similar situation for me. I've used Firefox for a long time, and it currently gives me the least-worst experience of the major browsers. That's probably the only reason I still use it. I wouldn't say I like using Firefox, though. In fact, I think the user experience has gotten a lot worse for me over time. On more than one occasion I've wanted to move away from it. Really the only thing that keeps me using Firefox is that none of the other major browsers offer a significantly more compelling experience at this time. I find all of the major browsers to be mediocre at best. If a better non-Firefox browser did come along, I'd likely switch away from Firefox as soon as I found out about the alternative. I have no real ties to Firefox itself.
lolc 10y ago
Freedom.
heavymark 10y ago
While I long upgrade from Firefox, I imagine most don't change because people hate change. I remember back when I switched I noticed all the little tiny differences, and while there were different and in most cases better ways of doing that in Chrome, I was use to my current way and any change slowed my productivity down. In the long run, I knew Chrome would be a better solution when I finally dove two feet in. But for many they are happy with what they have and while Chrome would offer a superior experience, the change wouldn't be worth it for many. And the rest I imagine fall into the category of I hate company x, so don't want to use it and then end up sticking with company that they believe on the surface is more inline with their values.
- RodericDay 10y ago
  what do you mean "on the surface"?
vetinari 10y ago
> vast majority of users could switch to Chrome and get all the same extensions with almost identical functionality [4] On desktop, maybe. On mobile, definitely not. Chrome for Android does not support extensions at all. Firefox, on the other hand, does. If you want uBlock, Ghostery, whatever on your mobile browser, you don't have other choice than Firefox. And if you like your bookmarks synced between mobile and desktop, that makes Chrome on desktop no-go option too.
- spinchange 10y ago
  >And if you like your bookmarks synced between mobile and desktop, that makes Chrome on desktop no-go option too. The extensions/ad blocker argument is 100% legit, but unless I misunderstand you, Chrome has had history and bookmark sync across signed-in platforms (mobile/desktop) for a very long time!
  - parthdesai 10y ago
    I think he means that since you can't use chrome on mobile because of lack of extensions, you can't use it on desktop unless you want out of sync bookmarks.
    - vetinari 10y ago
      Exactly! Thank you.
  - vetinari 10y ago
    > Chrome has had history and bookmark sync across signed-in platforms (mobile/desktop) for a very long time! Yes it did, but the requirement above is AND, not OR - if I want 1) ad blocking in mobile browser AND 2) synced passwords/bookmarks/whatever, I cannot use Chrome at the desktop, because it sync only with mobile Chrome and mobile Chrome doesn't do 1).
tmaly 10y ago
I don't feel like I am being data mined when I use Firefox.
ifdefdebug 10y ago
> only about 38% of Firefox users have an extension What? You can't describe 38% of your user base with the word "only". This should read "a whole 38% of Firefox users ..." I use Firefox because I trust it better than chrome, but I need those extensions I am using.
- kakarot 10y ago
  Or just remove the adjectives, give me the percentage and let me decide for myself.
- Jordrok 10y ago
  Yep. If you make a change that upsets nearly 40% of your userbase, can you really act surprised when you hear people complain about it? Even if you go with the comparatively tiny 5% estimate of users who are 'unable' to switch, that's still a number that's in the millions. This is the sort of thing that Google does all the time - optimize for the 90% at the expense of the remaining 10%. I think a lot of the more extreme backlash is because of that vocal (but not insignificant!) minority which is disappointed by the perception that Mozilla is going down the same route as Google (and all the other tech behemoths before them).
zackboe 10y ago
about:config I enjoy having the ability to tweak some tiny little settings that help my workflow here and there.
omash 10y ago
I could switch to Chrome but I have Firefox set up already and know how it works. I sincerely hate the Firefox developers for breaking addons constantly and now making it so I can't even edit addons without a painful signing process. Addons in Firefox seemed more powerful in the past but I'm confident WebExtensions will remove this advantage.
- kibwen 10y ago
  > I sincerely hate the Firefox developers for breaking addons constantly Exhibit A for why it's a good idea to allow addons only through a specified addons API (i.e. how Chrome does it): your users won't hate you merely for daring to make normal changes to your codebase.
perfectstorm 10y ago
Firefox's address bar is much more intelligent than Chrome. The moment i type a keyword it shows me the sites i visited from the past that has this keyword. Firefox also supports flick gesture from my Wacom tablet on my Windows machine to scroll up/down webpages.
- orcdork 10y ago
  I thought I was the only one - chrome's address bar is unusable for me.
  - bhauer 10y ago
    Chrome's address bar is almost obsessed with considering everything you type into the bar being a Google search.
nulagrithom 10y ago
Chrome feels invasive to me. It's always wanting me to sign in to my Google accounts and sync everything. Why would I want to sign in to a browser? It wants to run extensions as background processes (wtf?). Why would I want my browser to run "apps"? It's like it wants to be an OS wrapped in an OS. Why wouldn't I just use my OS? At this point, it just feels like bloat to me. I want a browser. That's all. I guess I use Firefox for what it doesn't try to do.
- sp332 10y ago
  I use Chrome apps for long-running things that are actually like apps. Gmail and Hangouts for example. It's nice to have a separate icon for them too. But I still do all my regular browsing in Firefox.
cyphax 10y ago
I genuinely just like it better than Chrome or Edge. I think Chrome is an excellent browser, and for about a year I used Chrome instead of Firefox (due to Firefox really not working anymore, having to restart the thing several times a day -- I also tried Opera, but it didn't fare any better) but I never liked using it as much as I liked Firefox. So at some point I tried Firefox again, and it has stuck so far. It's probably still not the most stable browser, or the fastest per se, but I generally like Mozilla's design decisions a bit better than Google's, and, well, it's super subjective but between Google and Mozilla, I have a bit more sympathy towards the latter (without hating the former or anything). I also use Firefox on my Android phone. I like that it can synchronize my profile, and it's also quite usable. Frankly I'm reasonably happy about the state of browsers (there have been times where, in my role as web developer, I wasn't quite so happy ;)) overall: seems like everybody's made at least a decent browser. I'm glad I can pick whichever browser I like best, not whichever one sucks the least. :P Also, I've been using it since 0.4, the first browser that could replace IE6 well for me, at that time (compatibility was still an issue -- am I old?)
jitl 10y ago
- TreeStyleTabs - Vimperator The Chrome alternatives for both of these do not compare well. Cvim, vimium, etc lack a lot of depth like .vimperatorrc (a config I can track in Git!). The TreeStyleTabs alternatives in Chrome require a separate sidecar window in Chrome! This mikes window management a nightmare. Sigh.
- oftenwrong 10y ago
  cVim does have a cvimrc file. You have to use the `configpath` and `localconfig` settings.
IE6 10y ago
Because I can't have a browser consume all of my memory.
microDude 10y ago
I don't worry about the browser collecting usage information to sell to information brokers. I have a lose trust in the Mozilla foundation to do the right thing.
DeepYogurt 10y ago
I use firefox because despite all the missteps that mozilla takes; I still like the company. I fell like mozilla have their heart in the right place and that they try (sometimes against all odds) to do the right thing. I want to support mozilla and that's why I use firefox.
wvenable 10y ago
Tab Mix Plus for Multirow tabs I guess I'm in the 5%. I have been responsible for a lot more installs than just my own -- lots of those people with little to no extensions. But in the last year or so I've switched to giving people Chrome (it just makes more sense these days) and when I'm no longer using Firefox I will definitely have no reason to advocate for it. But I understand, I'm on the losing side. The way that I've used the web for the last decade is going to be obsolete and I will have to suffer with whatever I can scrounge together to continue to work effectively. Whatever browser I can make that happen with will be the one that I use. If a lot more people had learned how awesome some of these add-on provided features are, they would have continued to be supported.
khedoros1 10y ago
- I've never felt coerced into creating an account to sign into or felt like I was tying myself to a system built around the goal of selling me ads. - I can disable EME and choose not to install Flash, and that applies to most other features that I don't want to use. - I started using it around Firebird because of its nature as a lightweight browser that provided extensions to let me pick and choose my functionality. I think of Firefox as a piece of software that says "yes" to the way that I want to do things more than it says "no".
oftenwrong 10y ago
A bunch of people have already mentioned a few extensions, like Tree Style Tabs, that I consider important, but there is another big thing keeping me on Firefox: inertia. I have been a user since it was "Phoenix". If I wanted, I could change to another browser, but for now I would rather not have to go through the trouble. I have everything as I like it, more or less, so I will continue using FireFox ESR until it is impractical.
Macha 10y ago
1. Addons. Google has censored YouTube Center because it allows people to download youtube videos. Pentadactyl is also important and not really possible to such a depth in Chrome (though I will admit I haven't had it installed in a while due to constant breakage). Tab groups is another that is unlikely to be available in WebExtensions, at least for a while. Call it insulting if you will, but it is the reality. 2. Open Source, both in long-term direction and not just code. Recent moves have dampened this though (Hello, Pocket, blocking addons from outside AMO, unsigned extension blocking) 3. I don't trust Google. Once upon a time, this was not the case.
thewavelength 10y ago
Does someone has also issues with heavy-loaded JavaScript pages, e. g. using React or Angular? It's a pain to use/scroll on those sites. The most awful website I know using it is Facebook. It is so damn laggy, even with uBlock and Disconnect enabled. When I start having more than one Facebook tab open (together with WhatsApp Web) I sometimes grow the will to switch to Chrome. I could resist yet because I don't like Google's approach for restrictive extension web store.
butz 10y ago
In addition to things already mentioned: * Doesn't put all extension icons in menu or toolbar, without option to hide them. * Empty page on new tab.
adiabatty 10y ago
I use it as my "IRC" browser because it supports whatever audio APIs Discord uses for chat. Slack goes on the same browser window because it's similar to Discord. I use Safari as my main browser, though.
crispinb 10y ago
I'm trying it out for a while, having mostly used Chrome in recent years. Perhaps oddly it's climate change that has prompted this. Where I live each summer is hotter than the last, and Chrome's persistent high cpu use this year has been making my macbook worryingly hot. Safari is more efficient but lacks many useful extensions. Firefox is pleasing so far. The laptop is far quieter and cooler. I've found all the extensions I need. I like not being bound to an ad company's product. The one thing I do miss is good support for keyboard shortcuts.
- cpeterso 10y ago
  Which keyboard shortcuts do you miss from Chrome?
  - crispinb 10y ago
    Two which spring to mind: (1) Email link. It has a menu item (File -> Email link) but no shortcut. Perhaps worse, the standard OSX means of adding a shortcut to a menu item (via System Prefs -> Keyboard) doesn't work with firefox. An assigned shortcut will very briefly flash the menu name, but doesn't then select the item. (2) Chrome has a general dialogue for assinging keyboard shortcuts to extensions. As firefox doesn't, the user is at the mercy of extension developers, many of whom seem to be mousers.
    - cpeterso 10y ago
      Unfortunately, Firefox doesn't currently support OS X's custom keyboard shortcuts for menus other than the Firefox application menu. I found a Firefox extension to customize keyboard shortcuts (ported from a Chrome extension). Unfortunately, the extension doesn't work in Firefox 51 or later (due to some unfortunate version checking logic in the extension itself). I left a message on the extension page, so perhaps the developer will update their extension. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/shortkeys-custom-shortcuts/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/shortkeys-cus...
      - 10y ago
oxide 10y ago
I've switched back and forth over the years. I'll never switch again. I prefer noscript to scriptsafe, I refuse to browse without a whitelister. I like the fact that the mobile version supports the extensions I see as vital. Chrome has one thing going for it, market share. which is why I keep Chromium installed for when I can't log into citibank to pay a bill, etc. Also, when I was a teenager without my own computer, my mother used to think Firefox was a virus. She'd tell me "uninstall that mozzarella foxfire virus IMMEDIATELY!" that always makes me laugh. I guess Mozzarella Foxfire hasn't burnt enough of their goodwill to scare me off for good the way Google has.
wvenable 10y ago
> vast majority of users could switch to Chrome and get all the same extensions with almost identical functionality I'm surprised this isn't a more worrying point! > In fact it's insulting to all those contributors who work so hard on Firefox to say that extensions are the only thing keeping them from switching to Chrome. But that's your most distinguishing feature. Ok, you have the stats to show that most people don't even notice. I think that's more insulting than us diehards who are actually using your product to its fullest. I love Firefox for the power it gives (extension) developers. Now you're telling me is that you're putting in a lot of work towards taking something away that I've used for over a decade. Don't expect those diehards to be happy about it.
laktak 10y ago
I don't understand Chrome's split personality (Chromium). While you could theoretically get a version that is disconnected from Google, does one actually exist? There is also this issue [1] that's been open since 2011 that won't let me implement an extension similar to something like "Self destructing cookies". Looks like it doesn't align with Googles interests. [1] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=78093 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=78093
replete 10y ago
Because Firefox Add-ons allow more browser-enhancement than Chrome. An example - TileTabs. Not only can you show any number of tabs in a grid like layout one one screen (so helpful for work), but it can compress them all into just one tab. Chrome's extensions are allowed an icon in one of two places.
dageshi 10y ago
Honestly, I just couldn't bear Chrome dev tools UI, thankfully firefox dev tools have a firebug ui option which I find just about perfect.
rwallace 10y ago
I would prefer to use Chrome because of the process per tab model, but the second time a Chrome update started the browser intermittently crashing, I ran out of patience and switched to Firefox as my primary browser.
KamBha 10y ago
Personally, I disliked the fact that Chrome would spawn so many processes. This has become less of an issue (as each process is no longer as heavy), but was a big deal previously as other people at work would constantly complain about their computers being slow. Call me old school, but I actually like the fact that the URL bar and the search bar are two separate things and that I can actually have a menu bar. I find the way that Chrome handles its navigation a little annoying at time and I don't see a big deal about losing a few hundred pixels to FF's chrome. I actually like the way that Mozilla communicates information about Firefox (less automated). Aside from that, unabashed fanboyism.
marssaxman 10y ago
I use Firefox because it works fine and doesn't appear to be trying to exploit me. I don't know what "WebExtensions" are or how they differ from regular extensions, but if Firefox breaks all the adblockers and scriptblockers that I depend on to make the web tolerable, I'm going to have to downgrade that "works fine" rating.
- sp332 10y ago
  WebExtensions are going to look a lot like Chrome's extensions, to the point that many addons will be compatible between the two. So, speaking loosely, anything Chrome addons can do now will be supported.
sp332 10y ago
Chrome is all about delivering web content to the user, as the web page developer designed it. Firefox moves the balance of power closer to the user. And not just with extensions, but by building in Readability mode and letting users pick fonts, sizes, colors etc. Even though Firefox is going to move away from their old addon model, they are constantly pushing to standardize more functionality in the new model. They really want users to experience the web on their own terms, even when that means putting a lot of extra work into the core framework of the browser.
elpocko 10y ago
Two reasons: There's a number of extensions I want to keep using. Those are not available on Chrome. And I fear for my privacy when using Chrome.
jherrick 10y ago
Need something other than Chrome and IE that has decent plugin support.
Silhouette 10y ago
In approximately this order: 1. Trust and privacy issues (limited phoning home, separate search/address bars, etc. plus generally promoting a more open Web) 2. Stability and reliability (in the sense that things continue to work over time) 3. Gets updates (but doesn't force them unexpectedly) 4. Large and flexible add-ons ecosystem (and I'm already familiar with it) 5. Momentum/habit In practice, 1-3 rule out Chrome as my everyday browser choice, while 1 and 3 rule out IE, so today Firefox basically wins by default on my Windows 7 PCs. If Mozilla rearranges or breaks too many things and if it's then no longer possible to have a secure version of Firefox without getting those other changes, most of the above points will become deal-breakers for Firefox as well. In that event, I'll mostly likely switch to something like Pale Moon for my own use and just keep the big names around for testing.
PeterWhittaker 10y ago
Might be worthwhile having a survey asking what browser HN users use most of the time (I use two, but one dominates quite a lot; neither are FF).
pasbesoin 10y ago
A browser that performs what I want rather than what some second or third party wants. A true user agent -- not some commercial agent increasingly modified to shovel corporate-ware and corporate spying at me. Extensions currently being a central piece of this. Kill my extensions, and I've a lot less reason to stay with you.
synicalx 10y ago
I used to use Firefox way back in the day before Chrome was a thing, then once Chrome existed and run pretty fast I moved to that for many years. Now I'm back to Firefox almost entirely due to the absurd 'Web Bluetooth' BS from Chrome's Update 56. It's noticeably more sluggish than Chrome even with little or no addons and tabs, but I'm far more ready to put up with that after the last few Chrome updates.
- quicksave2k 10y ago
  You might want to read https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13577670 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13577670 then ;)
sandov 10y ago
I use it because I don't want google to snoop on my browsing habits, and Firefox is the less shitty FOSS browser to my knowledge.
JohnTHaller 10y ago
Firefox is fully open source, does what I want it to. Syncs where I want it to if I choose to sync it. Allows me to run extensions on my Android device (Chrome doesn't). Is more customizable. And it works better portably (not installed into ProgramFiles running from a USB device or synced cloud folder). Chrome on Windows locks all your saved passwords, extensions, and extension settings to your current OS. If you upgrade to a new PC and copy your APPDATA over, Chrome will unceremoniously delete all your passwords and extension data with no warning. Chrome on Windows also allows any website to download infected DLLs to the local machine's download directory without prompting. If you then download a trusted digitally signed installer and run it from that download directory, it'll use those infected DLLs unless it specifically hard codes their locations (newer versions of NSIS are safe from this, older versions of NSIS - which are much more common - are vulnerable). IE and Edge... no thanks.
TheChaplain 10y ago
Technically I feel Firefox is good enough, it supports the browsing I do. From a non-technical PoV, I use it because I feel that Mozilla genuinely care about their users, their privacy and making a better WWW experience. Chrome on the other hand gives the impression having one single purpose, harvest as much user-data they possibly can while protecting their business interests. Although I understand it, I don't agree with it and don't think it'll be good for an open and free internet in the long run.
yellowapple 10y ago
For me, it really is the extensions. Specifically, it's Tree Style Tabs. Very few browsers seem to offer even just having tabs along the side of the window instead of at the top, let alone the actual tab tree. XUL also enables some neat Firefox-based browsers like Conkeror to exist. Hopefully something can be worked out so that similar functionality can be implemented in Firefox even after the death of XUL. Else, hopefully there can be some Firefox equivalent to CEF so that I or someone else can build a Firefox-based browser with an alternative UI. Else, I'll likely start browser hopping again - something I hoped to avoid by switching from Chrome to Firefox in the first place. I'll certainly still use Firefox on Android, since it's a fantastic little browser that has a somewhat-usable tab interface that doesn't become completely worthless beyond the 10-tab mark (I've got 52 open on this phone right now). For desktop, though, my hopes are on NetSurf to become reasonably usable (the recent Duktape integration is a nice start). Basically: I just want a browser that's FOSS and that doesn't shove all my tabs into the top of the window end-to-end like a goddamn maniac. That's really all I ask.
Avernar 10y ago
The main reason I use Firefox over Chrome is that the Chrome devs are very against users having a choice on how the browser operates. They also tend to over-engineer solutions to problems. Here's an example. There has been a bug report asking that Chrome ask to overwrite files instead of silently adding a number to the filename. Instead of making Chrome operate like every other browser and every other program out there they instead came up with a scheme to track all file downloads in the download history and if etags and dates match to "snap" to the location where the file already exists on the user's drive. Countless of users have said they don't want that. All they want is to be asked to overwrite. Nope, not going to happen. So give us an option in the settings. Nope. Apparently too many options is a bad thing to have. That's why I don't use Chrome.

61 points by e15ctr0n 10y ago

iSnow 10y ago

Goodwill, as I like Mozilla much more than Google. I kind of dislike the Chrome UI, but that's a minor point. A lot of FF is hare-brained, though. E10S solved the unresponsive UI for me, but for the life of me, I don't know how to enable it on my touchscreen Dell. There is no indicator in preferences that tells me whether it is on or off and no button to simply force it. Javascript-heavy websites tend to burn through the CPU of my Macbook Air, but I don't know how to throttle background tabs. Or at least profile which tab gobbles my cycles. About:performance is not that helpful. Ideally, there would be some indicator if a background tab eats more than x% CPU.

tomne 10y ago
`about:support` will tell you if the multiprocess windows are activated, depending on the add-ons you are using.
vetinari 10y ago
The E10S indication is probably not supposed to be user visible. You can check it though: Go to about:support page and in the first page, check the Multiprocess Windows row.
- rys 10y ago
  And for those that look at about:support and see it's disabled for some reason (an add-on you use doesn't play nice with it is the common thing), you should install an add-on called Add-on Compatibility Reporter, to tell you which one is causing you issues.
duckmuck 10y ago
I spoke with a Firefox dev, I was told that due to accessibility settings, multithreading with touchscreens wouldn't come until the current Beta build is released to stable. Technically it should already work on the beta build but it doesn't seem to work for me.
- cpeterso 10y ago
  AFAIK, accessibility support, including touchscreens, should be enabled in Firefox Beta 52 now: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis#Schedule https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis#Schedule In the meantime, you can force Firefox to enable multiprocess, even if you have a touchscreen by creating a new about:config pref "browser.tabs.remote.force-enable" = true.

yegle 10y ago

Pentadactyl beats most of Chrome's vim-like keybinding extensions.

oftenwrong 10y ago
I use Pentadactyl, but cvim for Chrome, a relative newcomer, is also very good.

Rekaiden 10y ago

It's not Chrome.

teovall 10y ago

Tree Style Tabs is the only reason left for me at this point.

blfr 10y ago
We may be the 1% or some other fringe but this is also my reason. Except for the UI, Chrome is generally ahead. It's not insulting to Firefox contributors. Competing with Google is hard.
- gnicholas 10y ago
  I came here to make sure that Tree Style Tabs was represented, and I see that it's already been mentioned several times. Why wouldn't Chrome build this in? It seems like they could grab a decent number of power users that way — and presumably make some of their other users happy along the way. I will note, however, that because of TST on Firefox, I keep way more tabs open there than in Chrome (20x, I'd guess). Based on the few times when I've had more than 15 or 20 tabs open on Chrome, I could imagine that it would bog down most machines. Perhaps they're not building it in because it would encourage people to browse with many tabs open, which would suck up lots of memory?
  - seba_dos1 10y ago
    I can imagine that's the case. Chrome with just moderate number of tabs open (under 100) already becomes unusable, both from UI and performance perspective, while Firefox many times worked fine for me with thousands.
CroCroCro 10y ago
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sidewise-tree-style-tabs/biiammgklaefagjclmnlialkmaemifgo https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sidewise-tree-styl... or https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tabs-outliner/eggkanocgddhmamlbiijnphhppkpkmkl https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tabs-outliner/eggk...

malnourish 10y ago

For me it's a combination of extensions and philosophy. Philosophy is pretty clear, but extensions that I find necessary are: Tree Style Tabs (Chrome does not have a good replacement, I've tried them all) DownThemAll LastPass with better functionality Mouse gestures (this is HUGE for me, I want to be able to lazily browse with my mouse when I please, open/close and switch tabs with just a right-click and a flick)

severine 10y ago
The Tree Style Tabs author is quite active[1]. I knew, he had a really great, and funny, site[2] for XUL lovers out there. I was about to make a snarky comment about how filthy rich should he be, based on how TST is always praised everywhere, so I went to look for a donation button to link to my planned snarky comment. I didn't find any donations button, so I dug a bit more and found this[3]: 'I am an incumbent IT engineer, but apart from my company's work, I'm serializing articles in the manga format entitled "Cis Tube Girls" in the monthly magazine on Linux related technology called Nikkei Linux.' Seriously, check this comic: http://system-admin-girl.com/about/ http://system-admin-girl.com/about/ I love Firefox, Tree Style Tabs, Google Translate, and the Internetcetera. I love you Piro, thanks!!! [1] https://github.com/piroor https://github.com/piroor [2] http://piro.sakura.ne.jp/xul/xul.html.en http://piro.sakura.ne.jp/xul/xul.html.en [3] https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpiro.sakura.ne.jp%2Flatest%2F&edit-text=&act=url https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...

campuscodi 10y ago

Because it's not owned by Google. That's why!

mybrid 10y ago
Agreed!
aagd 10y ago
+1

gogoengie 10y ago

Tree Style Tabs

CroCroCro 10y ago
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sidewise-tree-style-tabs/biiammgklaefagjclmnlialkmaemifgo https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sidewise-tree-styl... or https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tabs-outliner/eggkanocgddhmamlbiijnphhppkpkmkl https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tabs-outliner/eggk...
- malnourish 10y ago
  Unfortunately those replacements just don't cut it. They're too separate. Tree Style Tabs is irreplaceable for me.
- aesthetics1 10y ago
  Unfortunately these are tree style tabs in a separate window. Bad UX in my opinion.
- gogoengie 10y ago
  Thanks for the suggestions, and last year I dedicated a six month trial to using those "separate-window" implementations in Chrome, but I'm very sorry to say they remained clumsy. I group my work into topics by desktop; one browser instance per desktop, with an average total of 200+ tabs across eight windows. Restarting Firefox means sorting eight browser instances, one hotkey to snap them to half-width. Restarting Chrome required sorting sixteen browser windows, then manually aligning each primary window plus its tab window using the mouse. I tried, I really did, but that never became less of a pain.

clock_tower 10y ago

NoScript and uBlock Origin, both running at once, for an almost completely ad-free Web.

aesthetics1 10y ago
Is this not available under Chrome for some reason? Or was it not available when you made your switch (or original browser choice)?
- clock_tower 10y ago
  NoScript is mentioned in the article as not being available on Chrome, and I've heard that Chrome ad-blockers still show ads. Google being an ad company, I wouldn't expect them to allow particularly thorough ad-blocking.
  - jordsta 10y ago
    I'm not one to defend Chrome, but the functionality of uBlock Origin you get on Firefox is the exact same as what you get on Chrome. Same filters available and everything. If you still see an ad in Chrome with uBlock Origin installed, it's likely that the filters haven't updated to block that particular ad yet. Moreover, you'd likely see the same ad when browsing with the equivalent Firefox.
    - clock_tower 10y ago
      That's true enough; but uBlock Origin is my second line of defense -- the main one is NoScript. It requires quite a bit of savvy to navigate modern websites that way, but if you can work it out it's pretty powerful.

johnchristopher 10y ago

- not owned by a corp - I am used to the way the software feels (the way it hangs up or freezes... but at work I use Google Chrome because of the proxy and being used to it in that specific place it's firefox I can't stand... with the exception of the company issued laptop on which I installed firefox (no proxy)). Psychosomatic ? Very much, yes. - free software - I like the logo and the name (I am a minotaur and phoenix early adopter and moz before that) - I think they are good people and were there when I (as a user) needed them. I know chrome or IE is there to suck out my soul and my data (yuck).

cpeterso 10y ago
> I am a minotaur and phoenix early adopter and moz before that Interesting, I had never heard of Mozilla Minotaur before. I can't find many details online, other than it was a new mail client before Phoenix was renamed Firefox. Was Minotaur an early version of Thunderbird?
- johnchristopher 10y ago
  Yes, Minotaur was the name of the project to make a stand alone mail client out of the Mozilla suite. http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/2190891/Mozillas+Phoenix+Minotaur+Get+New+Names.htm http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/2190891/Moz... https://tech.slashdot.org/story/03/03/26/055232/new-mozilla-based-mail-client-minotaur https://tech.slashdot.org/story/03/03/26/055232/new-mozilla-...

coldpie 10y ago

It's not owned by an advertising company, and it's the only full-featured browser I'm aware of that has great ad blocking on Android.

mattbee 10y ago
100% the same - Chrome might be the faster browser, but it doesn't matter when it's hobbled with ads. I imagine that's even more significant when you have an older phone.

threepipeproblm 10y ago

I think the argument misses the point. Most of the people who are using Firefox without extensions are doing so because someone who likes the freedom of the browser -- including the ability to run all current extensions -- suggested it. >> In fact it's insulting to all those contributors who work so hard on Firefox to say that extensions are the only thing keeping them from switching to Chrome. The ability to run extensions is just the most popular manifestation of a browser that has always valued user freedom. So my question is, why are they stopping with that mentality? Why blame the victims of such a poor decision? Taking away my option to use extensions seems like the insulting choice to me.

kibwen 10y ago
> why are they stopping with that mentality? Because, in practice, officially giving unfettered access to Firefox's internals to third-party developers makes changing anything in the Firefox codebase a potential quagmire. It's taken five or six years for electrolysis to begin seeing the light of day, and that's because such a drastic rearchitecture of the browser ended up breaking basically every popular addon in the wild. In the meantime, the inability to evolve the browser has hampered its ability to compete with Chrome, whose deliberately-specified addons API leaves it with no such baggage. Not to mention that the greater scope of Firefox addons has more severe implications for user security, which means that Mozilla has to spend resources to further vet every addon on AMO, which leads to even more complaints at the sluggishness of the apparent bureaucracy. Addons were absolutely a great way to differentiate Firefox from IE back in the day, but in the context of modern web browsing having such a free-for-all addons interface is a lose-lose proposition. It's absolutely a shame, but the market of browser users has been inexorably making this decision for years now.
- threepipeproblm 10y ago
  That was well said. But at the end of the day doesn't it remain an argument that users shouldn't be able to run the extensions that have been freely available, aka "we know better than you." Breaking Firefox to turn it into the browser they wished they had made will be disastrous, I'm afraid. It seems to me there are any number of "middle paths" (or dual paths) that Mozilla could take, but they don't want to do anything to jeopardize their consolidated user base.

mybrid 10y ago

No processes. No hangouts. No index service started without asking. Chrome on Windows is a pig. Back when I was using it then nonstop then 25% of CPU usage was pegged to Chrome. I gave up trying to manage Chrome and switched to Firefox. Recently Firefox said they were moving away from threads to processes. I think that's a mistake. Killing Chrome was a pain at times because when it does hang all the child processes had to be killed independently. It was possible to restart Chrome with orphaned processes. What a mess. Also, I like the implementation of profiles in Firefox much better. I have a different profile for work, home and various side jobs. Very nice. Chrome developers are crap developers and they hide behind processes because they don't have the chops to do threads. I hate to see Firefox move in that direction. Maybe Firefox needs to since Firefox is adopting Chrome extensions. But I refuse to use Chrome because it has crappy performance and usability. Hopefully Firefox doesn't move in the same direction.

nextos 10y ago
I love Firefox because it's like the Emacs of browsers [1]. It's self-discoverable, it can be scripted and it has dozens of wonderful extensions. To me, dropping their plugin architecture to achieve compatibility with Chrome is a bit absurd. Vimperator, GreaseMonkey and many others make Firefox unique. [1] I know there's Conkeror, but the project seems to have stalled.
- yellowapple 10y ago
  Not only has Conkeror stalled, but scrapping XUL is a surefire way to murder it in cold blood. The only option going forward would be to rewrite it as an alternate browser that uses Gecko and/or Servo as the engine. My hope is that the move to WebExtensions will actually help here. Currently, Conkeror is theoretically compatible with Firefox extension-wise, but it often meant writing a bunch of glue code to expose Firefox extension functionality without Firefox' actual UI. Now that extensions are forced to be UI agnostic, it seems reasonable that a browser that's Firefox-compatible could have a much easier time with that. Hopefully a post-XUL Firefox will continue to support something along the basic lines of XULRunner (i.e. present a Firefox window without the actual UI) to make that easier than having to fork Firefox itself.

zlynx 10y ago

From habit, and to do my part keeping the Web from becoming a single-vendor standard. I also use Edge on my Surface tablet, for the same reasons.

bobajeff 10y ago

I use it because it's the only browser that supports my old computer.

TheCapn 10y ago

Generally speaking, I use Firefox because I've always used Firefox. At no point have they ever done something that's made me upset enough with my browsing experience to jump platforms entirely. It's familiar, it has the extensions I need and it hasn't buggered up in any significant way that I uninstalled it from frustration.

cesarb 10y ago
It's the same for me: I've used it since it was Netscape 2. I've used the single-digit Mozilla milestones (the ones that crashed if you opened more than one window, or if you looked at them funny). I've survived the "flamey bird renaming" era. I'm simply used to the way it works. Yes, it has changed, but any change has been gradual. Also, on Android it has the uBlock Origin extension, which with its ability (in advanced mode) to block images and Javascript helps keep the data consumption low (and make the sites load faster).
epoch1970 10y ago
It's a similar situation for me. I've used Firefox for a long time, and it currently gives me the least-worst experience of the major browsers. That's probably the only reason I still use it. I wouldn't say I like using Firefox, though. In fact, I think the user experience has gotten a lot worse for me over time. On more than one occasion I've wanted to move away from it. Really the only thing that keeps me using Firefox is that none of the other major browsers offer a significantly more compelling experience at this time. I find all of the major browsers to be mediocre at best. If a better non-Firefox browser did come along, I'd likely switch away from Firefox as soon as I found out about the alternative. I have no real ties to Firefox itself.

lolc 10y ago

Freedom.

heavymark 10y ago

While I long upgrade from Firefox, I imagine most don't change because people hate change. I remember back when I switched I noticed all the little tiny differences, and while there were different and in most cases better ways of doing that in Chrome, I was use to my current way and any change slowed my productivity down. In the long run, I knew Chrome would be a better solution when I finally dove two feet in. But for many they are happy with what they have and while Chrome would offer a superior experience, the change wouldn't be worth it for many. And the rest I imagine fall into the category of I hate company x, so don't want to use it and then end up sticking with company that they believe on the surface is more inline with their values.

RodericDay 10y ago
what do you mean "on the surface"?

vetinari 10y ago

> vast majority of users could switch to Chrome and get all the same extensions with almost identical functionality [4] On desktop, maybe. On mobile, definitely not. Chrome for Android does not support extensions at all. Firefox, on the other hand, does. If you want uBlock, Ghostery, whatever on your mobile browser, you don't have other choice than Firefox. And if you like your bookmarks synced between mobile and desktop, that makes Chrome on desktop no-go option too.

spinchange 10y ago
>And if you like your bookmarks synced between mobile and desktop, that makes Chrome on desktop no-go option too. The extensions/ad blocker argument is 100% legit, but unless I misunderstand you, Chrome has had history and bookmark sync across signed-in platforms (mobile/desktop) for a very long time!
- parthdesai 10y ago
  I think he means that since you can't use chrome on mobile because of lack of extensions, you can't use it on desktop unless you want out of sync bookmarks.
  - vetinari 10y ago
    Exactly! Thank you.
- vetinari 10y ago
  > Chrome has had history and bookmark sync across signed-in platforms (mobile/desktop) for a very long time! Yes it did, but the requirement above is AND, not OR - if I want 1) ad blocking in mobile browser AND 2) synced passwords/bookmarks/whatever, I cannot use Chrome at the desktop, because it sync only with mobile Chrome and mobile Chrome doesn't do 1).

tmaly 10y ago

I don't feel like I am being data mined when I use Firefox.

ifdefdebug 10y ago

> only about 38% of Firefox users have an extension What? You can't describe 38% of your user base with the word "only". This should read "a whole 38% of Firefox users ..." I use Firefox because I trust it better than chrome, but I need those extensions I am using.

kakarot 10y ago
Or just remove the adjectives, give me the percentage and let me decide for myself.
Jordrok 10y ago
Yep. If you make a change that upsets nearly 40% of your userbase, can you really act surprised when you hear people complain about it? Even if you go with the comparatively tiny 5% estimate of users who are 'unable' to switch, that's still a number that's in the millions. This is the sort of thing that Google does all the time - optimize for the 90% at the expense of the remaining 10%. I think a lot of the more extreme backlash is because of that vocal (but not insignificant!) minority which is disappointed by the perception that Mozilla is going down the same route as Google (and all the other tech behemoths before them).

zackboe 10y ago

about:config I enjoy having the ability to tweak some tiny little settings that help my workflow here and there.

omash 10y ago

I could switch to Chrome but I have Firefox set up already and know how it works. I sincerely hate the Firefox developers for breaking addons constantly and now making it so I can't even edit addons without a painful signing process. Addons in Firefox seemed more powerful in the past but I'm confident WebExtensions will remove this advantage.

kibwen 10y ago
> I sincerely hate the Firefox developers for breaking addons constantly Exhibit A for why it's a good idea to allow addons only through a specified addons API (i.e. how Chrome does it): your users won't hate you merely for daring to make normal changes to your codebase.

perfectstorm 10y ago

Firefox's address bar is much more intelligent than Chrome. The moment i type a keyword it shows me the sites i visited from the past that has this keyword. Firefox also supports flick gesture from my Wacom tablet on my Windows machine to scroll up/down webpages.

orcdork 10y ago
I thought I was the only one - chrome's address bar is unusable for me.
- bhauer 10y ago
  Chrome's address bar is almost obsessed with considering everything you type into the bar being a Google search.

nulagrithom 10y ago

Chrome feels invasive to me. It's always wanting me to sign in to my Google accounts and sync everything. Why would I want to sign in to a browser? It wants to run extensions as background processes (wtf?). Why would I want my browser to run "apps"? It's like it wants to be an OS wrapped in an OS. Why wouldn't I just use my OS? At this point, it just feels like bloat to me. I want a browser. That's all. I guess I use Firefox for what it doesn't try to do.

sp332 10y ago
I use Chrome apps for long-running things that are actually like apps. Gmail and Hangouts for example. It's nice to have a separate icon for them too. But I still do all my regular browsing in Firefox.

cyphax 10y ago

I genuinely just like it better than Chrome or Edge. I think Chrome is an excellent browser, and for about a year I used Chrome instead of Firefox (due to Firefox really not working anymore, having to restart the thing several times a day -- I also tried Opera, but it didn't fare any better) but I never liked using it as much as I liked Firefox. So at some point I tried Firefox again, and it has stuck so far. It's probably still not the most stable browser, or the fastest per se, but I generally like Mozilla's design decisions a bit better than Google's, and, well, it's super subjective but between Google and Mozilla, I have a bit more sympathy towards the latter (without hating the former or anything). I also use Firefox on my Android phone. I like that it can synchronize my profile, and it's also quite usable. Frankly I'm reasonably happy about the state of browsers (there have been times where, in my role as web developer, I wasn't quite so happy ;)) overall: seems like everybody's made at least a decent browser. I'm glad I can pick whichever browser I like best, not whichever one sucks the least. :P Also, I've been using it since 0.4, the first browser that could replace IE6 well for me, at that time (compatibility was still an issue -- am I old?)

jitl 10y ago

- TreeStyleTabs - Vimperator The Chrome alternatives for both of these do not compare well. Cvim, vimium, etc lack a lot of depth like .vimperatorrc (a config I can track in Git!). The TreeStyleTabs alternatives in Chrome require a separate sidecar window in Chrome! This mikes window management a nightmare. Sigh.

oftenwrong 10y ago
cVim does have a cvimrc file. You have to use the `configpath` and `localconfig` settings.

IE6 10y ago

Because I can't have a browser consume all of my memory.

microDude 10y ago

I don't worry about the browser collecting usage information to sell to information brokers. I have a lose trust in the Mozilla foundation to do the right thing.

DeepYogurt 10y ago

I use firefox because despite all the missteps that mozilla takes; I still like the company. I fell like mozilla have their heart in the right place and that they try (sometimes against all odds) to do the right thing. I want to support mozilla and that's why I use firefox.

wvenable 10y ago

Tab Mix Plus for Multirow tabs I guess I'm in the 5%. I have been responsible for a lot more installs than just my own -- lots of those people with little to no extensions. But in the last year or so I've switched to giving people Chrome (it just makes more sense these days) and when I'm no longer using Firefox I will definitely have no reason to advocate for it. But I understand, I'm on the losing side. The way that I've used the web for the last decade is going to be obsolete and I will have to suffer with whatever I can scrounge together to continue to work effectively. Whatever browser I can make that happen with will be the one that I use. If a lot more people had learned how awesome some of these add-on provided features are, they would have continued to be supported.

khedoros1 10y ago

- I've never felt coerced into creating an account to sign into or felt like I was tying myself to a system built around the goal of selling me ads. - I can disable EME and choose not to install Flash, and that applies to most other features that I don't want to use. - I started using it around Firebird because of its nature as a lightweight browser that provided extensions to let me pick and choose my functionality. I think of Firefox as a piece of software that says "yes" to the way that I want to do things more than it says "no".

oftenwrong 10y ago

A bunch of people have already mentioned a few extensions, like Tree Style Tabs, that I consider important, but there is another big thing keeping me on Firefox: inertia. I have been a user since it was "Phoenix". If I wanted, I could change to another browser, but for now I would rather not have to go through the trouble. I have everything as I like it, more or less, so I will continue using FireFox ESR until it is impractical.

Macha 10y ago

1. Addons. Google has censored YouTube Center because it allows people to download youtube videos. Pentadactyl is also important and not really possible to such a depth in Chrome (though I will admit I haven't had it installed in a while due to constant breakage). Tab groups is another that is unlikely to be available in WebExtensions, at least for a while. Call it insulting if you will, but it is the reality. 2. Open Source, both in long-term direction and not just code. Recent moves have dampened this though (Hello, Pocket, blocking addons from outside AMO, unsigned extension blocking) 3. I don't trust Google. Once upon a time, this was not the case.

thewavelength 10y ago

Does someone has also issues with heavy-loaded JavaScript pages, e. g. using React or Angular? It's a pain to use/scroll on those sites. The most awful website I know using it is Facebook. It is so damn laggy, even with uBlock and Disconnect enabled. When I start having more than one Facebook tab open (together with WhatsApp Web) I sometimes grow the will to switch to Chrome. I could resist yet because I don't like Google's approach for restrictive extension web store.

butz 10y ago

In addition to things already mentioned: * Doesn't put all extension icons in menu or toolbar, without option to hide them. * Empty page on new tab.

adiabatty 10y ago

I use it as my "IRC" browser because it supports whatever audio APIs Discord uses for chat. Slack goes on the same browser window because it's similar to Discord. I use Safari as my main browser, though.

crispinb 10y ago

I'm trying it out for a while, having mostly used Chrome in recent years. Perhaps oddly it's climate change that has prompted this. Where I live each summer is hotter than the last, and Chrome's persistent high cpu use this year has been making my macbook worryingly hot. Safari is more efficient but lacks many useful extensions. Firefox is pleasing so far. The laptop is far quieter and cooler. I've found all the extensions I need. I like not being bound to an ad company's product. The one thing I do miss is good support for keyboard shortcuts.

cpeterso 10y ago
Which keyboard shortcuts do you miss from Chrome?
- crispinb 10y ago
  Two which spring to mind: (1) Email link. It has a menu item (File -> Email link) but no shortcut. Perhaps worse, the standard OSX means of adding a shortcut to a menu item (via System Prefs -> Keyboard) doesn't work with firefox. An assigned shortcut will very briefly flash the menu name, but doesn't then select the item. (2) Chrome has a general dialogue for assinging keyboard shortcuts to extensions. As firefox doesn't, the user is at the mercy of extension developers, many of whom seem to be mousers.
  - cpeterso 10y ago
    Unfortunately, Firefox doesn't currently support OS X's custom keyboard shortcuts for menus other than the Firefox application menu. I found a Firefox extension to customize keyboard shortcuts (ported from a Chrome extension). Unfortunately, the extension doesn't work in Firefox 51 or later (due to some unfortunate version checking logic in the extension itself). I left a message on the extension page, so perhaps the developer will update their extension. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/shortkeys-custom-shortcuts/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/shortkeys-cus...
    - 10y ago

oxide 10y ago

I've switched back and forth over the years. I'll never switch again. I prefer noscript to scriptsafe, I refuse to browse without a whitelister. I like the fact that the mobile version supports the extensions I see as vital. Chrome has one thing going for it, market share. which is why I keep Chromium installed for when I can't log into citibank to pay a bill, etc. Also, when I was a teenager without my own computer, my mother used to think Firefox was a virus. She'd tell me "uninstall that mozzarella foxfire virus IMMEDIATELY!" that always makes me laugh. I guess Mozzarella Foxfire hasn't burnt enough of their goodwill to scare me off for good the way Google has.

wvenable 10y ago

> vast majority of users could switch to Chrome and get all the same extensions with almost identical functionality I'm surprised this isn't a more worrying point! > In fact it's insulting to all those contributors who work so hard on Firefox to say that extensions are the only thing keeping them from switching to Chrome. But that's your most distinguishing feature. Ok, you have the stats to show that most people don't even notice. I think that's more insulting than us diehards who are actually using your product to its fullest. I love Firefox for the power it gives (extension) developers. Now you're telling me is that you're putting in a lot of work towards taking something away that I've used for over a decade. Don't expect those diehards to be happy about it.

laktak 10y ago

I don't understand Chrome's split personality (Chromium). While you could theoretically get a version that is disconnected from Google, does one actually exist? There is also this issue [1] that's been open since 2011 that won't let me implement an extension similar to something like "Self destructing cookies". Looks like it doesn't align with Googles interests. [1] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=78093 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=78093

replete 10y ago

Because Firefox Add-ons allow more browser-enhancement than Chrome. An example - TileTabs. Not only can you show any number of tabs in a grid like layout one one screen (so helpful for work), but it can compress them all into just one tab. Chrome's extensions are allowed an icon in one of two places.

dageshi 10y ago

Honestly, I just couldn't bear Chrome dev tools UI, thankfully firefox dev tools have a firebug ui option which I find just about perfect.

rwallace 10y ago

I would prefer to use Chrome because of the process per tab model, but the second time a Chrome update started the browser intermittently crashing, I ran out of patience and switched to Firefox as my primary browser.

KamBha 10y ago

Personally, I disliked the fact that Chrome would spawn so many processes. This has become less of an issue (as each process is no longer as heavy), but was a big deal previously as other people at work would constantly complain about their computers being slow. Call me old school, but I actually like the fact that the URL bar and the search bar are two separate things and that I can actually have a menu bar. I find the way that Chrome handles its navigation a little annoying at time and I don't see a big deal about losing a few hundred pixels to FF's chrome. I actually like the way that Mozilla communicates information about Firefox (less automated). Aside from that, unabashed fanboyism.

marssaxman 10y ago

I use Firefox because it works fine and doesn't appear to be trying to exploit me. I don't know what "WebExtensions" are or how they differ from regular extensions, but if Firefox breaks all the adblockers and scriptblockers that I depend on to make the web tolerable, I'm going to have to downgrade that "works fine" rating.

sp332 10y ago
WebExtensions are going to look a lot like Chrome's extensions, to the point that many addons will be compatible between the two. So, speaking loosely, anything Chrome addons can do now will be supported.

sp332 10y ago

Chrome is all about delivering web content to the user, as the web page developer designed it. Firefox moves the balance of power closer to the user. And not just with extensions, but by building in Readability mode and letting users pick fonts, sizes, colors etc. Even though Firefox is going to move away from their old addon model, they are constantly pushing to standardize more functionality in the new model. They really want users to experience the web on their own terms, even when that means putting a lot of extra work into the core framework of the browser.

elpocko 10y ago

Two reasons: There's a number of extensions I want to keep using. Those are not available on Chrome. And I fear for my privacy when using Chrome.

jherrick 10y ago

Need something other than Chrome and IE that has decent plugin support.

Silhouette 10y ago

In approximately this order: 1. Trust and privacy issues (limited phoning home, separate search/address bars, etc. plus generally promoting a more open Web) 2. Stability and reliability (in the sense that things continue to work over time) 3. Gets updates (but doesn't force them unexpectedly) 4. Large and flexible add-ons ecosystem (and I'm already familiar with it) 5. Momentum/habit In practice, 1-3 rule out Chrome as my everyday browser choice, while 1 and 3 rule out IE, so today Firefox basically wins by default on my Windows 7 PCs. If Mozilla rearranges or breaks too many things and if it's then no longer possible to have a secure version of Firefox without getting those other changes, most of the above points will become deal-breakers for Firefox as well. In that event, I'll mostly likely switch to something like Pale Moon for my own use and just keep the big names around for testing.

PeterWhittaker 10y ago

Might be worthwhile having a survey asking what browser HN users use most of the time (I use two, but one dominates quite a lot; neither are FF).

pasbesoin 10y ago

A browser that performs what I want rather than what some second or third party wants. A true user agent -- not some commercial agent increasingly modified to shovel corporate-ware and corporate spying at me. Extensions currently being a central piece of this. Kill my extensions, and I've a lot less reason to stay with you.

synicalx 10y ago

I used to use Firefox way back in the day before Chrome was a thing, then once Chrome existed and run pretty fast I moved to that for many years. Now I'm back to Firefox almost entirely due to the absurd 'Web Bluetooth' BS from Chrome's Update 56. It's noticeably more sluggish than Chrome even with little or no addons and tabs, but I'm far more ready to put up with that after the last few Chrome updates.

quicksave2k 10y ago
You might want to read https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13577670 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13577670 then ;)

sandov 10y ago

I use it because I don't want google to snoop on my browsing habits, and Firefox is the less shitty FOSS browser to my knowledge.

JohnTHaller 10y ago

Firefox is fully open source, does what I want it to. Syncs where I want it to if I choose to sync it. Allows me to run extensions on my Android device (Chrome doesn't). Is more customizable. And it works better portably (not installed into ProgramFiles running from a USB device or synced cloud folder). Chrome on Windows locks all your saved passwords, extensions, and extension settings to your current OS. If you upgrade to a new PC and copy your APPDATA over, Chrome will unceremoniously delete all your passwords and extension data with no warning. Chrome on Windows also allows any website to download infected DLLs to the local machine's download directory without prompting. If you then download a trusted digitally signed installer and run it from that download directory, it'll use those infected DLLs unless it specifically hard codes their locations (newer versions of NSIS are safe from this, older versions of NSIS - which are much more common - are vulnerable). IE and Edge... no thanks.

TheChaplain 10y ago

Technically I feel Firefox is good enough, it supports the browsing I do. From a non-technical PoV, I use it because I feel that Mozilla genuinely care about their users, their privacy and making a better WWW experience. Chrome on the other hand gives the impression having one single purpose, harvest as much user-data they possibly can while protecting their business interests. Although I understand it, I don't agree with it and don't think it'll be good for an open and free internet in the long run.

yellowapple 10y ago

For me, it really is the extensions. Specifically, it's Tree Style Tabs. Very few browsers seem to offer even just having tabs along the side of the window instead of at the top, let alone the actual tab tree. XUL also enables some neat Firefox-based browsers like Conkeror to exist. Hopefully something can be worked out so that similar functionality can be implemented in Firefox even after the death of XUL. Else, hopefully there can be some Firefox equivalent to CEF so that I or someone else can build a Firefox-based browser with an alternative UI. Else, I'll likely start browser hopping again - something I hoped to avoid by switching from Chrome to Firefox in the first place. I'll certainly still use Firefox on Android, since it's a fantastic little browser that has a somewhat-usable tab interface that doesn't become completely worthless beyond the 10-tab mark (I've got 52 open on this phone right now). For desktop, though, my hopes are on NetSurf to become reasonably usable (the recent Duktape integration is a nice start). Basically: I just want a browser that's FOSS and that doesn't shove all my tabs into the top of the window end-to-end like a goddamn maniac. That's really all I ask.

Avernar 10y ago

The main reason I use Firefox over Chrome is that the Chrome devs are very against users having a choice on how the browser operates. They also tend to over-engineer solutions to problems. Here's an example. There has been a bug report asking that Chrome ask to overwrite files instead of silently adding a number to the filename. Instead of making Chrome operate like every other browser and every other program out there they instead came up with a scheme to track all file downloads in the download history and if etags and dates match to "snap" to the location where the file already exists on the user's drive. Countless of users have said they don't want that. All they want is to be asked to overwrite. Nope, not going to happen. So give us an option in the settings. Nope. Apparently too many options is a bad thing to have. That's why I don't use Chrome.