7 ms·

Stick with Mozilla Firefox. Don’t understand why people still believe a for-profit Corp will prioritize users rights. ... not to mention Brendan Eich’s divisiv

by onyva 8y ago

Stick with Mozilla Firefox. Don’t understand why people still believe a for-profit Corp will prioritize users rights. ... not to mention Brendan Eich’s divisive and controversial behavior befor he was forced out of Mozilla.

MaxBarraclough 8y ago
More to the point, it's closed-source.
- drchaos 8y ago
  Not open source per OSI criteria, however they claim the source is available and can be inspected: https://help.vivaldi.com/article/is-vivaldi-open-source/ https://help.vivaldi.com/article/is-vivaldi-open-source/
  - MaxBarraclough 8y ago
    Interesting. > This means that for all practical purposes the Vivaldi source code is available for audit. Acid test: can I build it myself and expect to see identical binaries to what they ship?
    - adrianN 8y ago
      Can you do that with Firefox? Reproducible builds are pretty hard.
      - MaxBarraclough 8y ago
        Fair point. Of course, to a FOSS purist, it's still not good enough, as mere source-inspectibility isn't enough to qualify as OSI Open Source, or as FSF Free Software.
    - JdeBP 8y ago
      Actually the acid test in this instance is whether, source in hand, you can prove https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17564964 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17564964 wrong. (-:
      - MaxBarraclough 8y ago
        The ID-generation code should be inspectable, right?
cmroanirgo 8y ago
Some fact checking (because I wanted to read about these accusations) reveals this is not the case. > Stick with Mozilla Firefox Brendan Eich is CEO of Brave browser. He is not listed as being part of vivaldi browser, which this phrase implies. > forced out of Mozilla. Brendan Eich was not fired nor forced out by Mozilla. Mozilla themselves report these statements: [0] 1. Q: Was Brendan Eich fired? A: No 2. Q: Was Brendan Eich asked to resign by the Board? A: No 3. Q: Was Brendan Eich forced out by employee pressure? A: No 4. Q: Did Board members resign over Brendan’s Prop 8 donation? A: No [0] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat... (Edit: formatting & more info)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- onyva 8y ago
  True about Brave, part of my pasted text (on my phone) is missing. It meant to say like all other similar initiatives, they don’t add anything were differentiation is possible and that’s privacy IMHO. Firefox IS the only browser users can trust these days. The rant about Eich was given in respect to Brave and not Vivaldi. Apologies to the developers of Vivaldi. I said forced not fired. He couldn’t have stayed. There’s no place for racists and homophobes in Mozilla.
hawski 8y ago
Firefox is developed by a for-profit corporation the Mozilla Corporation, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation. It's of course not to say that the Mozilla Corporation is an evil profit seeker, but merely a perspective. I for one think that modern web standards are used by most web site authors not in users interests. Therefore implementing those standards in good faith not necessarily mean implementing an _user_ agent. Firefox is great, but web as it is mostly served is increasingly not. I just would like to see an user agent dedicated to users, not standards. Even if it would mean omitting JS and most of CSS. I would use it for information seeking and Firefox for necessary web apps.
- dao- 8y ago
  > Firefox is developed by a for-profit corporation the Mozilla Corporation, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation. It's of course not to say that the Mozilla Corporation is an evil profit seeker, but merely a perspective. "wholly owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation" is the more important part here, because the Foundation is nonprofit and eventually has authority over the corporation, so the latter can't decide on its own to sell out. The corporation needs to be able to make a profit not as an end in itself but to make strategic savings in case things get more rough with Google.
  - rhabarba 8y ago
    From the Wikipedia: > Net income: US$103.8 million (2016) I wonder how rough things must be.
    - dao- 8y ago
      Pretty rough, but that's not a too unrealistic scenario given that Google is a pretty aggressive competitor in the browser market and there are hardly any other search engines that would be good enough to be the default in a mainstream browser. (Mozilla tried with Yahoo but they couldn't deliver the quality users have come to expect.) Have you checked Mozilla's expenses too? It has around 1200 employees, I think, and a few offices around the world, data center costs etc.. If you want to be able to independently keep that going for a few years, you need a big war chest.
rhabarba 8y ago
Have you noticed that Mozilla Firefox has started to become a tracking device? https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/16/16784628/mozilla-mr-robot-arg-plugin-firefox-looking-glass https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/16/16784628/mozilla-mr-robo... German-specific: https://blog.mozilla.org/press-de/2017/10/06/ein-neues-cliqz-experiment-in-firefox/ https://blog.mozilla.org/press-de/2017/10/06/ein-neues-cliqz... Oh, yes, they were deeply sorry about it. I'm sure that Google would be as well.
- Liquid_Fire 8y ago
  What does the Mr Robot extension have to do with tracking?
  - ealhad 8y ago
    As stated in the article: > Mozilla developers can distribute addons to users without their knowledge
GyYZTfWBfQw 8y ago
Don't understand why a huge ideological conglomerate will prioritize users rights. The same conglomerate that lobby for standards that are massively detrimental to users, collect all sorts of user information etc.
nmbr213 8y ago
> Mozilla Firefox The browser that's has Google Analytics integrated, comes with pre-installed third-party tracking app, and that reports home every UI interaction you have? No, thanks, I'll stick with Iridium. [1] https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/firefox.html https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/firefox.html
- gruez 8y ago
  >No, thanks, I'll stick with Iridium ...which was last updated may 2018.
  - nmbr213 8y ago
    <s>Whole two months!</s> As long as there are no missing security updates, I don't see how it's a deal breaker.
rjvbk 8y ago
You're talking about the same Firefox that displays ads on my home page by default, sends analytics to them by default, and is owned by a foundation that is owned by a for-profit company?
- ealhad 8y ago
  You've got it backwards, the Mozilla Corporation is owned by the Mozilla Foundation (non-profit).
  - rjvbk 8y ago
    Yes sorry. The browser is directly owned by a for-profit, then.
morganvachon 8y ago
Firefox is becoming more user hostile with each revision, though. I've been using Waterfox as a more privacy-conscious alternative, but long term I'd like to see a new, fully open source, privacy focused, user-first browser that doesn't phone home for any reason. Waterfox is 99% there, but I feel the developer is having issues moving it to the Firefox Quantum release due to all the extra crap Mozilla shoveled into that release.
- lucideer 8y ago
  > the Firefox Quantum release [...] all the extra crap Mozilla shoveled into that release. Hadn't heard about extra user-hostile stuff in this release? What things are the Waterfox guys having trouble with?
  - ailideex 8y ago
    It is not really user hostile - but it is developer hostile IMO. The person you replied to did not claim the Firefox Quantum stuff was user hostile either.
    - lucideer 8y ago
      I'm just curious about what they're referring to (user- or developer-hostile). What is it that you find developer-hostile? They mentioned user-hostile in their first sentence and then went on to say the Waterfox devs were having difficulty with Quantum, so I'm really just asking about either. I am generally just curious, as a user of Firefox. I currently trust it more than Chrome but I'm concerned if there's a trend of disimprovement. I've commented on HN before about my concerns with some Mozilla initiatives (mainly Test Flight, but others too), but I was under the impression that Firefox core work was of a better standard.
  - morganvachon 8y ago
    The bulk of the user-hostile bits are in this list[1] of what's removed from Firefox for the Waterfox builds, mostly telemetry and tracking, Pocket, ad-supported nonsense, and DRM (for those who prefer a DRM-free first class browsing experience). Waterfox also allows users to continue using "classic" extensions that Mozilla completely abandoned, and the developer has committed to staying with Firefox ESR until he feels Quantum has reached a point where he can switch to that codebase (i.e. maintain older extensions while allowing new features). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfox#Overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfox#Overview

by onyva 8y ago

MaxBarraclough 8y ago

More to the point, it's closed-source.

drchaos 8y ago
Not open source per OSI criteria, however they claim the source is available and can be inspected: https://help.vivaldi.com/article/is-vivaldi-open-source/ https://help.vivaldi.com/article/is-vivaldi-open-source/
- MaxBarraclough 8y ago
  Interesting. > This means that for all practical purposes the Vivaldi source code is available for audit. Acid test: can I build it myself and expect to see identical binaries to what they ship?
  - adrianN 8y ago
    Can you do that with Firefox? Reproducible builds are pretty hard.
    - MaxBarraclough 8y ago
      Fair point. Of course, to a FOSS purist, it's still not good enough, as mere source-inspectibility isn't enough to qualify as OSI Open Source, or as FSF Free Software.
  - JdeBP 8y ago
    Actually the acid test in this instance is whether, source in hand, you can prove https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17564964 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17564964 wrong. (-:
    - MaxBarraclough 8y ago
      The ID-generation code should be inspectable, right?

cmroanirgo 8y ago

Some fact checking (because I wanted to read about these accusations) reveals this is not the case. > Stick with Mozilla Firefox Brendan Eich is CEO of Brave browser. He is not listed as being part of vivaldi browser, which this phrase implies. > forced out of Mozilla. Brendan Eich was not fired nor forced out by Mozilla. Mozilla themselves report these statements: [0] 1. Q: Was Brendan Eich fired? A: No 2. Q: Was Brendan Eich asked to resign by the Board? A: No 3. Q: Was Brendan Eich forced out by employee pressure? A: No 4. Q: Did Board members resign over Brendan’s Prop 8 donation? A: No [0] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat... (Edit: formatting & more info)

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
onyva 8y ago
True about Brave, part of my pasted text (on my phone) is missing. It meant to say like all other similar initiatives, they don’t add anything were differentiation is possible and that’s privacy IMHO. Firefox IS the only browser users can trust these days. The rant about Eich was given in respect to Brave and not Vivaldi. Apologies to the developers of Vivaldi. I said forced not fired. He couldn’t have stayed. There’s no place for racists and homophobes in Mozilla.

hawski 8y ago

Firefox is developed by a for-profit corporation the Mozilla Corporation, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation. It's of course not to say that the Mozilla Corporation is an evil profit seeker, but merely a perspective. I for one think that modern web standards are used by most web site authors not in users interests. Therefore implementing those standards in good faith not necessarily mean implementing an _user_ agent. Firefox is great, but web as it is mostly served is increasingly not. I just would like to see an user agent dedicated to users, not standards. Even if it would mean omitting JS and most of CSS. I would use it for information seeking and Firefox for necessary web apps.

dao- 8y ago
> Firefox is developed by a for-profit corporation the Mozilla Corporation, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation. It's of course not to say that the Mozilla Corporation is an evil profit seeker, but merely a perspective. "wholly owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation" is the more important part here, because the Foundation is nonprofit and eventually has authority over the corporation, so the latter can't decide on its own to sell out. The corporation needs to be able to make a profit not as an end in itself but to make strategic savings in case things get more rough with Google.
- rhabarba 8y ago
  From the Wikipedia: > Net income: US$103.8 million (2016) I wonder how rough things must be.
  - dao- 8y ago
    Pretty rough, but that's not a too unrealistic scenario given that Google is a pretty aggressive competitor in the browser market and there are hardly any other search engines that would be good enough to be the default in a mainstream browser. (Mozilla tried with Yahoo but they couldn't deliver the quality users have come to expect.) Have you checked Mozilla's expenses too? It has around 1200 employees, I think, and a few offices around the world, data center costs etc.. If you want to be able to independently keep that going for a few years, you need a big war chest.

rhabarba 8y ago

Have you noticed that Mozilla Firefox has started to become a tracking device? https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/16/16784628/mozilla-mr-robot-arg-plugin-firefox-looking-glass https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/16/16784628/mozilla-mr-robo... German-specific: https://blog.mozilla.org/press-de/2017/10/06/ein-neues-cliqz-experiment-in-firefox/ https://blog.mozilla.org/press-de/2017/10/06/ein-neues-cliqz... Oh, yes, they were deeply sorry about it. I'm sure that Google would be as well.

Liquid_Fire 8y ago
What does the Mr Robot extension have to do with tracking?
- ealhad 8y ago
  As stated in the article: > Mozilla developers can distribute addons to users without their knowledge

GyYZTfWBfQw 8y ago

Don't understand why a huge ideological conglomerate will prioritize users rights. The same conglomerate that lobby for standards that are massively detrimental to users, collect all sorts of user information etc.

nmbr213 8y ago

> Mozilla Firefox The browser that's has Google Analytics integrated, comes with pre-installed third-party tracking app, and that reports home every UI interaction you have? No, thanks, I'll stick with Iridium. [1] https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/firefox.html https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/firefox.html

gruez 8y ago
>No, thanks, I'll stick with Iridium ...which was last updated may 2018.
- nmbr213 8y ago
  <s>Whole two months!</s> As long as there are no missing security updates, I don't see how it's a deal breaker.

rjvbk 8y ago

You're talking about the same Firefox that displays ads on my home page by default, sends analytics to them by default, and is owned by a foundation that is owned by a for-profit company?

ealhad 8y ago
You've got it backwards, the Mozilla Corporation is owned by the Mozilla Foundation (non-profit).
- rjvbk 8y ago
  Yes sorry. The browser is directly owned by a for-profit, then.

morganvachon 8y ago

Firefox is becoming more user hostile with each revision, though. I've been using Waterfox as a more privacy-conscious alternative, but long term I'd like to see a new, fully open source, privacy focused, user-first browser that doesn't phone home for any reason. Waterfox is 99% there, but I feel the developer is having issues moving it to the Firefox Quantum release due to all the extra crap Mozilla shoveled into that release.

lucideer 8y ago
> the Firefox Quantum release [...] all the extra crap Mozilla shoveled into that release. Hadn't heard about extra user-hostile stuff in this release? What things are the Waterfox guys having trouble with?
- ailideex 8y ago
  It is not really user hostile - but it is developer hostile IMO. The person you replied to did not claim the Firefox Quantum stuff was user hostile either.
  - lucideer 8y ago
    I'm just curious about what they're referring to (user- or developer-hostile). What is it that you find developer-hostile? They mentioned user-hostile in their first sentence and then went on to say the Waterfox devs were having difficulty with Quantum, so I'm really just asking about either. I am generally just curious, as a user of Firefox. I currently trust it more than Chrome but I'm concerned if there's a trend of disimprovement. I've commented on HN before about my concerns with some Mozilla initiatives (mainly Test Flight, but others too), but I was under the impression that Firefox core work was of a better standard.
- morganvachon 8y ago
  The bulk of the user-hostile bits are in this list[1] of what's removed from Firefox for the Waterfox builds, mostly telemetry and tracking, Pocket, ad-supported nonsense, and DRM (for those who prefer a DRM-free first class browsing experience). Waterfox also allows users to continue using "classic" extensions that Mozilla completely abandoned, and the developer has committed to staying with Firefox ESR until he feels Quantum has reached a point where he can switch to that codebase (i.e. maintain older extensions while allowing new features). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfox#Overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfox#Overview