5 ms·

I did that about a month ago, after more than 10 years with Chrome only. So far so good, apart from battery usage on Android. I sometimes feel it spirals when

I did that about a month ago, after more than 10 years with Chrome only. So far so good, apart from battery usage on Android. I sometimes feel it spirals when too many tabs are left open. Desktop, no problem. I have kept Chrome for my work stuff, because I want 100% efficiency / no delay due to my tech choices and I work on a SaaS tool primarily targeting Chrome. I still think Chrome is better when it comes to powering web apps, ahem, made by Google in particular. The real question for me is, besides privacy, what is the killer feature that will / does make it obvious to switch to Firefox? It seems that other browsers like Brave are also quite good at dealing with privacy, so why Firefox and not Brave?

feanaro 7y ago
> The real question for me is, besides privacy, what is the killer feature that will / does make it obvious to switch to Firefox? Preventing the web from devolving into a closed garden. For this we need alternative browser engines and hence Brave does not make the cut. Other than that, containers are a pretty useful tool that's so far Firefox only.
- dhimes 7y ago
  Yes- so it's important that devs don't build primarily for Chrome. If we succumb to this temptation, then the demise of the web will be our fault. Consumers don't care. They are going to use the one that is most convenient to make work correctly.
- eloisant 7y ago
  I also switched to Firefox a year ago or so, and I liked Chrome accounts better than Firefox containers. I ended up to using them at all and mixing everything, while on Chrome work and personal was cleanly separated.
- kmlx 7y ago
  > Preventing the web from devolving into a closed garden. For this we need alternative browser engines and hence Brave does not make the cut. 1. all web engines are open source 2. we had multiple engines. it didn't work out, at all. user experience was thrown out the window, technologies weren't implemented, the web was massively fragmented. 3. we're now trying to have a single open source engine that everyone contributes to since it's better for everyone's experience.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    > all web engines are open source Open source does not mean open development. Forking a browser doesn’t help if nobody cares about your fork. > technologies weren't implemented They’re still not implemented. Sometimes this is because the teams are slow; sometimes it’s because the technology is a privacy nightmare. > we're now trying to have a single open source engine that everyone contributes to since it's better for everyone's experience. No, see above.
  - The_Colonel 7y ago
    Everyone can contribute to chromium/blink but only one side calls the shots. In other words you can contribute all you want as long as it fulfills google's needs. Of course you can fork it and do it your way but then you will be left behind since you need massive man power to be able to do development on your own.
  - foepys 7y ago
    1. It doesn't matter. When Google decides to implement something (or doesn't), Edge, Brave, Chrome etc. will get this feature (or lack thereof). Only Safari and Firefox will be different. As an independent developer you don't have any say about this in a Blink-only system. 2. That's what the WHATWG is about. No more -moz, -ie, -webkit prefixes, just agree on a standard and implement it. 3. It's not truly open. Google has the last say. Do you want a Google-only internet? Just look at the recent ad-block controversy.
  - feanaro 7y ago
    > 2. we had multiple engines We have multiple engines. This is a fact. > 3. we're now trying to have a single open source engine that everyone contributes to since it's better for everyone's experience. We are not trying that at all. The experience is perfectly fine with our currently existing multiple engines. > 1. all web engines are open source This does not matter much if your goal is to maintain a single engine. What matters is control of software releases. In order to maintain a web which is not exclusively controlled by a single entity, the releases need to be controlled by more than a single entity. This sounds like a tautology because it almost is one. The only thing the free software aspect helps with is that it is easier to assume control of the releases, but as soon as you do this, you've forked the engine and there are now multiple engines. Hence, there is actually no way of maintaining a single engine while also decentralizing control. Short of Google relinquishing control of Chrome and forming some kind of international browser development committee, but that sounds like a creature from nightmares and is yet again a central point of failure.
- clement_b 7y ago
  OK for 'us'. But what about my mum and dad? What's the reason for them to use Firefox over Chrome? They don't care about the web being destroyed by Google and Apple. They care about... a smooth experience, I guess? They moved to Chrome from IE because of a very poor experience on IE. Chrome is amazing. Having most people switching away is a hard sell. I honestly think Brave has a more compelling selling point here, even if privacy is not something that sells as well as it should, meaning its adoption will be limited to early adopters / privacy-aware individuals only. I agree with the other comments, it's our duty to ensure other browsers still exist, we can't let Chrome have it all, but we need more than obscure features to turn it around.
  - feanaro 7y ago
    Why does Brave have a more compelling sell? What does it offer that could be sold to users as a feature they need? I wouldn't know how to explain Brave compellingly, unless I'm using some of the same arguments I use for Firefox (which are weakened in Brave's case due to using the same engine as Chrome). On the other hand, explaining Firefox seems easy. People around me seem receptive to both privacy and closed garden concerns. I explain to them how their data is used if they do not take precautionary measures to prevent it. I also tell them that the web they know and love will get increasingly suffocated and rot away under the pressure of Google which has no concern for them or their needs. I tell them about Google's recent efforts to prevent ad-blockers from working well. I also mention other malicious tactics, such as AMP and the effort to hide the URL. I then set up uBlock Origin (making a point it's the best ad-blocker but will stop working on Chrome shortly), Facebook Container and Multi-account Containers for a few of the most obnoxious websites. Multi-account Containers has a setting to make the association of a particular domain with a container permanent[+]. I give them a short introduction to containers and teach them to recognize when a website is open in a particular container (there's an indicator in the URL bar). This works in my experience. It sticks. They continue using Firefox and at times even spread the idea to their social circle. It helps that in recent times concerns about Google, Chrome and computer surveillance are talked about in their regular news channels, so that I am not the only source where they hear about this. > They care about... a smooth experience, I guess? Ask them again. Try to understand their preference well enough that you can explain it clearly. I am quite confident that they don't actually care about anything Chrome has to offer at all[@]. They're simply used to the colourful circle icon because they are being bombarded by it everywhere. It's the same as with IE before, only this time around it's a colourful circle instead of a blue 'e'. > Chrome is amazing. Having most people switching away is a hard sell. Firefox is amazing (in a technical sense) too. It's just as smooth as Chrome for me and sometimes even smoother since I'm a heavy tab user. I dislike some of Mozilla's decisions as well, but this takes a backseat to the more pressing issue of vendor lock-in given that there is no mainstream alternative. [+] This could use a bit of UI work. After you assign a website to a container, you have to open the website in another container so that it asks you whether you always want to open that website in that container (it's a checkbox). [@] As a disclaimer, I'm just extrapolating from my experience. Perhaps your parents are an exception and they do have a strong preference for a Chrome-only feature. If so, this is a useful thing to learn.
hyperdunc 7y ago
On Android, Firefox allows you to install extensions (such as an ad blocker).
- foepys 7y ago
  Only "Firefox on Android". The newer "Firefox Preview" and "Firefox Focus" mysteriously lost this ability. Firefox on Android is stuck on version 68, it's like Firefox' ESR version.
  - Multicomp 7y ago
    Fennec (old Firefox Android) supports addons. Fenix(? new Firefox Android) WILL support addons, they just haven't been implemented yet. Firefox Focus does include some basic adblocking capabilities, but is more about being light on resource / data consumption.

feanaro 7y ago

> The real question for me is, besides privacy, what is the killer feature that will / does make it obvious to switch to Firefox? Preventing the web from devolving into a closed garden. For this we need alternative browser engines and hence Brave does not make the cut. Other than that, containers are a pretty useful tool that's so far Firefox only.

dhimes 7y ago
Yes- so it's important that devs don't build primarily for Chrome. If we succumb to this temptation, then the demise of the web will be our fault. Consumers don't care. They are going to use the one that is most convenient to make work correctly.
eloisant 7y ago
I also switched to Firefox a year ago or so, and I liked Chrome accounts better than Firefox containers. I ended up to using them at all and mixing everything, while on Chrome work and personal was cleanly separated.
kmlx 7y ago
> Preventing the web from devolving into a closed garden. For this we need alternative browser engines and hence Brave does not make the cut. 1. all web engines are open source 2. we had multiple engines. it didn't work out, at all. user experience was thrown out the window, technologies weren't implemented, the web was massively fragmented. 3. we're now trying to have a single open source engine that everyone contributes to since it's better for everyone's experience.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > all web engines are open source Open source does not mean open development. Forking a browser doesn’t help if nobody cares about your fork. > technologies weren't implemented They’re still not implemented. Sometimes this is because the teams are slow; sometimes it’s because the technology is a privacy nightmare. > we're now trying to have a single open source engine that everyone contributes to since it's better for everyone's experience. No, see above.
- The_Colonel 7y ago
  Everyone can contribute to chromium/blink but only one side calls the shots. In other words you can contribute all you want as long as it fulfills google's needs. Of course you can fork it and do it your way but then you will be left behind since you need massive man power to be able to do development on your own.
- foepys 7y ago
  1. It doesn't matter. When Google decides to implement something (or doesn't), Edge, Brave, Chrome etc. will get this feature (or lack thereof). Only Safari and Firefox will be different. As an independent developer you don't have any say about this in a Blink-only system. 2. That's what the WHATWG is about. No more -moz, -ie, -webkit prefixes, just agree on a standard and implement it. 3. It's not truly open. Google has the last say. Do you want a Google-only internet? Just look at the recent ad-block controversy.
- feanaro 7y ago
  > 2. we had multiple engines We have multiple engines. This is a fact. > 3. we're now trying to have a single open source engine that everyone contributes to since it's better for everyone's experience. We are not trying that at all. The experience is perfectly fine with our currently existing multiple engines. > 1. all web engines are open source This does not matter much if your goal is to maintain a single engine. What matters is control of software releases. In order to maintain a web which is not exclusively controlled by a single entity, the releases need to be controlled by more than a single entity. This sounds like a tautology because it almost is one. The only thing the free software aspect helps with is that it is easier to assume control of the releases, but as soon as you do this, you've forked the engine and there are now multiple engines. Hence, there is actually no way of maintaining a single engine while also decentralizing control. Short of Google relinquishing control of Chrome and forming some kind of international browser development committee, but that sounds like a creature from nightmares and is yet again a central point of failure.
clement_b 7y ago
OK for 'us'. But what about my mum and dad? What's the reason for them to use Firefox over Chrome? They don't care about the web being destroyed by Google and Apple. They care about... a smooth experience, I guess? They moved to Chrome from IE because of a very poor experience on IE. Chrome is amazing. Having most people switching away is a hard sell. I honestly think Brave has a more compelling selling point here, even if privacy is not something that sells as well as it should, meaning its adoption will be limited to early adopters / privacy-aware individuals only. I agree with the other comments, it's our duty to ensure other browsers still exist, we can't let Chrome have it all, but we need more than obscure features to turn it around.
- feanaro 7y ago
  Why does Brave have a more compelling sell? What does it offer that could be sold to users as a feature they need? I wouldn't know how to explain Brave compellingly, unless I'm using some of the same arguments I use for Firefox (which are weakened in Brave's case due to using the same engine as Chrome). On the other hand, explaining Firefox seems easy. People around me seem receptive to both privacy and closed garden concerns. I explain to them how their data is used if they do not take precautionary measures to prevent it. I also tell them that the web they know and love will get increasingly suffocated and rot away under the pressure of Google which has no concern for them or their needs. I tell them about Google's recent efforts to prevent ad-blockers from working well. I also mention other malicious tactics, such as AMP and the effort to hide the URL. I then set up uBlock Origin (making a point it's the best ad-blocker but will stop working on Chrome shortly), Facebook Container and Multi-account Containers for a few of the most obnoxious websites. Multi-account Containers has a setting to make the association of a particular domain with a container permanent[+]. I give them a short introduction to containers and teach them to recognize when a website is open in a particular container (there's an indicator in the URL bar). This works in my experience. It sticks. They continue using Firefox and at times even spread the idea to their social circle. It helps that in recent times concerns about Google, Chrome and computer surveillance are talked about in their regular news channels, so that I am not the only source where they hear about this. > They care about... a smooth experience, I guess? Ask them again. Try to understand their preference well enough that you can explain it clearly. I am quite confident that they don't actually care about anything Chrome has to offer at all[@]. They're simply used to the colourful circle icon because they are being bombarded by it everywhere. It's the same as with IE before, only this time around it's a colourful circle instead of a blue 'e'. > Chrome is amazing. Having most people switching away is a hard sell. Firefox is amazing (in a technical sense) too. It's just as smooth as Chrome for me and sometimes even smoother since I'm a heavy tab user. I dislike some of Mozilla's decisions as well, but this takes a backseat to the more pressing issue of vendor lock-in given that there is no mainstream alternative. [+] This could use a bit of UI work. After you assign a website to a container, you have to open the website in another container so that it asks you whether you always want to open that website in that container (it's a checkbox). [@] As a disclaimer, I'm just extrapolating from my experience. Perhaps your parents are an exception and they do have a strong preference for a Chrome-only feature. If so, this is a useful thing to learn.

hyperdunc 7y ago

On Android, Firefox allows you to install extensions (such as an ad blocker).

foepys 7y ago
Only "Firefox on Android". The newer "Firefox Preview" and "Firefox Focus" mysteriously lost this ability. Firefox on Android is stuck on version 68, it's like Firefox' ESR version.
- Multicomp 7y ago
  Fennec (old Firefox Android) supports addons. Fenix(? new Firefox Android) WILL support addons, they just haven't been implemented yet. Firefox Focus does include some basic adblocking capabilities, but is more about being light on resource / data consumption.