4 ms·

FWIW, though I'm an avid supporter of Firefox and use it, my very consistent observation is that security experts believe, * Chrome/Chromium is more secure aga

FWIW, though I'm an avid supporter of Firefox and use it, my very consistent observation is that security experts believe, * Chrome/Chromium is more secure against attacks by governments or criminals (i.e., attacks against the integrity of the system; I can't think of the right word). * Firefox may be more secure against advertising and corporate confidentiality attacks. * Firefox with certain add-ons, too technical for most users, may be as secure as Chrome/Chromium.

pvg 10y ago
The fundamental difference is that Google is a gigantic engineering organization that dedicates enormous resources to security, benefiting Chrome directly and indirectly. Over the years, lots of work has been done to ensure and improve its security at a design and architectural level. Firefox, as this announcement shows, is just getting around to freeing itself from design decisions which may have made sense over a decade ago when Mozilla had 'software suite' ambitions but we now know are a liability for something with the security demands of a browser.
- johnsmith21006 10y ago
  Plus Google has much broader view and data to secure Chrome well beyond FF is going to be able to accomplish. Plus Google has far more to loose.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > design decisions which may have made sense over a decade ago when Mozilla had 'software suite' ambitions It doesn't change your overall point, but I think this part is incorrect. AFAIK abandoning those ambitions was the reason they left Seamonkey behind and developed Firefox.
  - pvg 10y ago
    Firefox started well before Seamonkey was spun out, and they continued with Thunderbird anyway. But the details of the history of the ambitions don't matter, what matters is that these architectural decisions were made a long, long time ago but their consequences are still there. You can decide you're not going make an app suite, that doesn't magically re-architect the internals of the product you have. Take a look at this announcement from Netscape, in 2000 (AD): https://gilbane.com/2000/03/netscape-announces-gecko-adoptees-xul-netscape-6/ https://gilbane.com/2000/03/netscape-announces-gecko-adoptee... Support for XUL addons is being dropped now. That's a long echo.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      > You can decide you're not going make an app suite, that doesn't magically re-architect the internals of the product you have. I'm not sure how that applies. Firefox wasn't magic; Mozilla rewrote their browser intentionally and put a lot of resources into it. > Firefox started well before Seamonkey was spun out My understanding of that statement is that they didn't drop the old product until the new one was succeeding in the marketplace. I'm not sure how that impacts what I said.
      - pvg 10y ago
        Firefox wasn't magic; Mozilla rewrote their browser intentionally and put a lot of resources into it. No no, they didn't. Firefox and Mozilla (and even later versions of Netscape) share the same architectural underpinnings. That's sort of the intent and cleverness of it, it's really an entire system for writing cross-platform apps, with its own 'language independent' component model, gui layer, etc. The things that made Firefox possible also made all-powerful Firefox extensions possible. Much of that architecture is still around. In the intervening years, it's become obvious this is not necessarily a good way to build a browser. Which is why they are dropping XUL/XPCOM extensions. If they'd 'rewritten' it, they wouldn't need to do that. My understanding of that statement is that they didn't drop the old product until the new one was succeeding in the marketplace. I'm talking about common architecture, not products. If you're unfamiliar with it, just scroll through this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XPCOM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XPCOM If you are familiar with it, I guess I don't understand what your objection is.

pvg 10y ago

The fundamental difference is that Google is a gigantic engineering organization that dedicates enormous resources to security, benefiting Chrome directly and indirectly. Over the years, lots of work has been done to ensure and improve its security at a design and architectural level. Firefox, as this announcement shows, is just getting around to freeing itself from design decisions which may have made sense over a decade ago when Mozilla had 'software suite' ambitions but we now know are a liability for something with the security demands of a browser.

johnsmith21006 10y ago
Plus Google has much broader view and data to secure Chrome well beyond FF is going to be able to accomplish. Plus Google has far more to loose.
hackuser 10y ago
> design decisions which may have made sense over a decade ago when Mozilla had 'software suite' ambitions It doesn't change your overall point, but I think this part is incorrect. AFAIK abandoning those ambitions was the reason they left Seamonkey behind and developed Firefox.
- pvg 10y ago
  Firefox started well before Seamonkey was spun out, and they continued with Thunderbird anyway. But the details of the history of the ambitions don't matter, what matters is that these architectural decisions were made a long, long time ago but their consequences are still there. You can decide you're not going make an app suite, that doesn't magically re-architect the internals of the product you have. Take a look at this announcement from Netscape, in 2000 (AD): https://gilbane.com/2000/03/netscape-announces-gecko-adoptees-xul-netscape-6/ https://gilbane.com/2000/03/netscape-announces-gecko-adoptee... Support for XUL addons is being dropped now. That's a long echo.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > You can decide you're not going make an app suite, that doesn't magically re-architect the internals of the product you have. I'm not sure how that applies. Firefox wasn't magic; Mozilla rewrote their browser intentionally and put a lot of resources into it. > Firefox started well before Seamonkey was spun out My understanding of that statement is that they didn't drop the old product until the new one was succeeding in the marketplace. I'm not sure how that impacts what I said.
    - pvg 10y ago
      Firefox wasn't magic; Mozilla rewrote their browser intentionally and put a lot of resources into it. No no, they didn't. Firefox and Mozilla (and even later versions of Netscape) share the same architectural underpinnings. That's sort of the intent and cleverness of it, it's really an entire system for writing cross-platform apps, with its own 'language independent' component model, gui layer, etc. The things that made Firefox possible also made all-powerful Firefox extensions possible. Much of that architecture is still around. In the intervening years, it's become obvious this is not necessarily a good way to build a browser. Which is why they are dropping XUL/XPCOM extensions. If they'd 'rewritten' it, they wouldn't need to do that. My understanding of that statement is that they didn't drop the old product until the new one was succeeding in the marketplace. I'm talking about common architecture, not products. If you're unfamiliar with it, just scroll through this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XPCOM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XPCOM If you are familiar with it, I guess I don't understand what your objection is.