4 ms·

No, Mozilla sabotaged Firefox.

musicale 8y ago
^ This. Mediocre performance. Slow startup. Poor UI. Crap like Pocket. I'd be more inclined to use Firefox if it didn't feel so clunky, didn't keep trying to push Pocket on me, and took a more aggressive stance fighting against web annoyances and adtech. Heck I might consider switching to Firefox if it could actually, reliably block autoplaying video - something that Safari and Chrome seem incapable of doing.
- opan 8y ago
  If you're already using Chrome you likely don't care much about free software, but to address your specific complaints I would recommend GNU Icecat! It strips out some things like pocket, has some about:config tweaks out of the box with privacy in mind, etc. I will give the unfortunate tip that you should probably disable librejs which comes with it out of the box. I am not against its goal, but it breaks so much stuff. I also use umatrix and ublock origin so I already am often clicking around to unbreak a page. I didn't deal well with adding librejs on top of that. That said, if I made my own website, I'd strive for librejs compatibility for sure.
  - techntoke 8y ago
    Far from true. Chromium on Arch is entirely open source and includes hardware acceleration, unlike Firefox which doesn't think Linux is relevant.
- sebazzz 8y ago
  Pocket is a deal, search providers are a deal. All to put some money in Mozillas pocket to allow continued development of Firefox. They can't rely on donations and Google funding alone.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Pocket isn't a deal, it's a service owned by Mozilla itself.
  - techntoke 8y ago
    Whatever happened to being community-based and developers working on it because they wanted to help build a great application? Why do they even need a corporation giving them money to implement tracking and other features to compromise user privacy and security?
    - CharlesColeman 8y ago
      > Whatever happened to being community-based and developers working on it because they wanted to help build a great application? Why do they even need a corporation giving them money to implement tracking and other features to compromise user privacy and security? Browsers being: 1. massively complicated, 2. requiring massive feature support for compatibility with the ecosystem, 3. the biggest attack surface on anyone's computer, and 4. made by people doing huge amounts of work who want to eat. I don't think we can have a secure, feature-complete, fully community-developed browser unless there's a massive refactor and simplification of HTML and related technologies.
- orev 8y ago
  I saw Pocket on there once or twice when they initially included it, and have not seen it since. I don’t see that they are “keep trying to push” it in any way. Just say no/disable it and move on.
- techntoke 8y ago
  I'll consider switching when they care enough about Linux to enable proper hardware acceleration.
timw4mail 8y ago
I'd agree in the early days of rapid release, and the previous interface redesign. Extension broke every update, the interface change made the toolbars less customizable, and there was more focus on new features than performance. Extensions had to be reworked. There was no way to make such implementation-dependent code stable for each release. The current API is much more limited in scope as well, but the performance and security concerns were and still are very valid. I'm not a fan of the new tab page, and I have generally disliked how the settings have been reworked, but I still think then end product is better than Chrome. (On the other hand, Opera 12 was the king of resource usage...and I miss it)

^ This. Mediocre performance. Slow startup. Poor UI. Crap like Pocket. I'd be more inclined to use Firefox if it didn't feel so clunky, didn't keep trying to push Pocket on me, and took a more aggressive stance fighting against web annoyances and adtech. Heck I might consider switching to Firefox if it could actually, reliably block autoplaying video - something that Safari and Chrome seem incapable of doing.

opan 8y ago
If you're already using Chrome you likely don't care much about free software, but to address your specific complaints I would recommend GNU Icecat! It strips out some things like pocket, has some about:config tweaks out of the box with privacy in mind, etc. I will give the unfortunate tip that you should probably disable librejs which comes with it out of the box. I am not against its goal, but it breaks so much stuff. I also use umatrix and ublock origin so I already am often clicking around to unbreak a page. I didn't deal well with adding librejs on top of that. That said, if I made my own website, I'd strive for librejs compatibility for sure.
- techntoke 8y ago
  Far from true. Chromium on Arch is entirely open source and includes hardware acceleration, unlike Firefox which doesn't think Linux is relevant.
sebazzz 8y ago
Pocket is a deal, search providers are a deal. All to put some money in Mozillas pocket to allow continued development of Firefox. They can't rely on donations and Google funding alone.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Pocket isn't a deal, it's a service owned by Mozilla itself.
- techntoke 8y ago
  Whatever happened to being community-based and developers working on it because they wanted to help build a great application? Why do they even need a corporation giving them money to implement tracking and other features to compromise user privacy and security?
  - CharlesColeman 8y ago
    > Whatever happened to being community-based and developers working on it because they wanted to help build a great application? Why do they even need a corporation giving them money to implement tracking and other features to compromise user privacy and security? Browsers being: 1. massively complicated, 2. requiring massive feature support for compatibility with the ecosystem, 3. the biggest attack surface on anyone's computer, and 4. made by people doing huge amounts of work who want to eat. I don't think we can have a secure, feature-complete, fully community-developed browser unless there's a massive refactor and simplification of HTML and related technologies.
orev 8y ago
I saw Pocket on there once or twice when they initially included it, and have not seen it since. I don’t see that they are “keep trying to push” it in any way. Just say no/disable it and move on.
techntoke 8y ago
I'll consider switching when they care enough about Linux to enable proper hardware acceleration.

timw4mail 8y ago

I'd agree in the early days of rapid release, and the previous interface redesign. Extension broke every update, the interface change made the toolbars less customizable, and there was more focus on new features than performance. Extensions had to be reworked. There was no way to make such implementation-dependent code stable for each release. The current API is much more limited in scope as well, but the performance and security concerns were and still are very valid. I'm not a fan of the new tab page, and I have generally disliked how the settings have been reworked, but I still think then end product is better than Chrome. (On the other hand, Opera 12 was the king of resource usage...and I miss it)