3 ms·

An alternative is an open source version of a browser from an advert company, with anti-features hopefully being kept in check by diligent maintainers. As much

An alternative is an open source version of a browser from an advert company, with anti-features hopefully being kept in check by diligent maintainers. As much as I dislike that, from the advert company I know they're on the side of the advertisers. They're not presenting a "we're on the side of you, the users" face, whilst behaving more or less the same. A better alternative would be a fork of Firefox, kept up to date by a handful of overworked but dedicated-to-their-users volunteers. These exist, and maybe they would get some more recognition and funding if Mozilla were to cease to exist. I don't think Mozilla can change. They're too comfortably corporate. Having lost sight of their mission, I think it would be better if it disappeared and was replaced by something else.

underwater 8y ago
Your alternative only makes sense if Chrome continues to win. Google is not going to continue investing in Chromium if a competing open source browser wins out.
AsyncAwait 8y ago
> An alternative is an open source version of a browser from an advert company, with anti-features hopefully being kept in check by diligent maintainers. To which nobody will listen and who'd have zero power in the standards committees, as unfortunate as it may be.
- craigsmansion 8y ago
  What's the difference between having zero power and having some power but always caving when it's important for the open web with the excuse that if you hadn't you would lose users and have no say the standards committees?
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    I get your frustration, I felt the same particularly after the DRM fiasco, but at least in Firefox it's not enabled by default. I'd say that is an important difference. More importantly, I think what's important is that there exist multiple browser engines because that forces Google to at least compromise somewhat, (agree to WebAssembly instead of just DartVM for example), not run completely unchecked, even if I agree with your core premise and I think Mozilla should fight a lot harder than it often does.
Yoric 8y ago
I'm afraid that this is not an alternative. What you are suggesting is a browser that just won't let you browse the web (because it will be obsolete after a few months) and that nobody will care about. > I don't think Mozilla can change. They're too comfortably corporate. Having lost sight of their mission, I think it would be better if it disappeared and was replaced by something else. I understand how you can see it like this. However, from Mozilla's point of view, what you call "los[ing] sight of their mission" is "caring for as many users as possible" – rather than only for the most tech-literate fringe to which HN readers tend to belong.
- craigsmansion 8y ago
  > What you are suggesting is a browser that just won't let you browse the web That won't let you browse all of the web, all of the time. That's a common argument, but Firefox has been there before. When IE ruled the web, droves of people used Firefox and switched temporarily to IE if a site wouldn't work. They partly did so because it had been explained to them how important the Open Web was.

underwater 8y ago

Your alternative only makes sense if Chrome continues to win. Google is not going to continue investing in Chromium if a competing open source browser wins out.

AsyncAwait 8y ago

> An alternative is an open source version of a browser from an advert company, with anti-features hopefully being kept in check by diligent maintainers. To which nobody will listen and who'd have zero power in the standards committees, as unfortunate as it may be.

craigsmansion 8y ago
What's the difference between having zero power and having some power but always caving when it's important for the open web with the excuse that if you hadn't you would lose users and have no say the standards committees?
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  I get your frustration, I felt the same particularly after the DRM fiasco, but at least in Firefox it's not enabled by default. I'd say that is an important difference. More importantly, I think what's important is that there exist multiple browser engines because that forces Google to at least compromise somewhat, (agree to WebAssembly instead of just DartVM for example), not run completely unchecked, even if I agree with your core premise and I think Mozilla should fight a lot harder than it often does.

Yoric 8y ago

I'm afraid that this is not an alternative. What you are suggesting is a browser that just won't let you browse the web (because it will be obsolete after a few months) and that nobody will care about. > I don't think Mozilla can change. They're too comfortably corporate. Having lost sight of their mission, I think it would be better if it disappeared and was replaced by something else. I understand how you can see it like this. However, from Mozilla's point of view, what you call "los[ing] sight of their mission" is "caring for as many users as possible" – rather than only for the most tech-literate fringe to which HN readers tend to belong.

craigsmansion 8y ago
> What you are suggesting is a browser that just won't let you browse the web That won't let you browse all of the web, all of the time. That's a common argument, but Firefox has been there before. When IE ruled the web, droves of people used Firefox and switched temporarily to IE if a site wouldn't work. They partly did so because it had been explained to them how important the Open Web was.