> Using Chrome would cost me a lot. Both because it is sub-par for my usage patterns and because it feels bad to support it. Doesn't change the fact that your

> Using Chrome would cost me a lot. Both because it is sub-par for my usage patterns and because it feels bad to support it. Doesn't change the fact that your analogy is flawed. > Last I checked whey will still be miles ahead of every other browser. Vimperator maybe, but that stopped working a while back. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/mozilla-sets-plan-to-dump-firefox-add-ons-move-to-chrome-like-extensions/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/08/mozil... Still, they're moving. And why do you think they're moving? > Pwn2own is the equivalent of lining up cars and inviting people to bring their preferred weapon to test the armour. I agree with you, but I was responding to your comment about a sniper rifle. I'd argue that pwn2own is the equivalent of using a sniper rifle - and Chrome seems to have dealt with it well. > In any case: Yes, the safer the better, but we need to stop this "nothing but the most secure" mindset because in the end it only results in a Chrome monoculture which I think is worse in every way, even securitywise. Like I said, I'd been using Firefox for years because I honestly think it's a better browser. That doesn't excuse how far behind they are security wise though. They seem to have the resources with the companies they've been acquiring but IMO they (the resources) are misplaced. I much prefer open source, and on my home Arch Machine I use Chromium but at work I'm required to use Windows so I use Chrome because otherwise it's awkward. Once Mozilla gets sandboxing implemented I will be moving back to Firefox.