5 ms·

I think Firefox has ~5% of our user base. It's hard to justify running separate tests for it anymore. I wish they'd just become a privacy-focused Chromium fork

by tapoxi 5y ago

I think Firefox has ~5% of our user base. It's hard to justify running separate tests for it anymore. I wish they'd just become a privacy-focused Chromium fork because I don't see them crawling back to a meaningful marketshare at this rate. (Yeah I know multiple implementations and all that, but we don't have many people running FreeBSD just to give Linux some competition.)

everdrive 5y ago
> wish they'd just become a privacy-focused Chromium fork because These already exist, and Chromium is far from perfect. I'm glad there's a viable competitor.
- tehbeard 5y ago
  I'm not sure I'd classify it as viable with how Mozilla middle management has acted the last few years.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    It's at least technically viable for now
- handrous 5y ago
  Safari and, especially, its iOS monopoly (for the engine, at least) are the only thing keeping Google from dominating and nearly everyone from only testing against Chrome, now that MS switched to using Chrome's engine and IE is finally nearing the end even in the important niches where it had been hanging on. FF doesn't have enough "normies" using it, isn't the default anywhere, and its trend-line is heading the wrong direction.
- buu700 5y ago
  In my experience, Firefox actually has better performance than Chrome nowadays — particularly on Apple Silicon, where the difference is stark and dramatic. And with the new "Proton" interface, IMO Firefox finally looks at least as nice as Chrome out of the box. Firefox mobile still has some catching up to do on the overall UI/UX, but it's not too far off, and the fact that it allows extensions is nice.
  - awoimbee 5y ago
    But chrome uses the GPU a lot more, thus making everything faster. Firefox right now is like Linux a few years back: better CPU performance but little to no GPU acceleration
    - coder543 5y ago
      > But chrome uses the GPU a lot more [citation needed] Firefox page rendering is GPU accelerated. It's called WebRender. Your information seems to be out of date. Article from 2017 when WebRender was still being prepared for release: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2017/10/the-whole-web-at-maximum-fps-how-webrender-gets-rid-of-jank/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2017/10/the-whole-web-at-maximum-f... Current platform support list, which seems to be "almost everyone": https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/GFX/WebRender_Where https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/GFX/WebRender_Where
  - mu_ddib 5y ago
    this is interesting - i've had the opposite experience on both x86 and ARM Macs to the extent that it's not really a viable browser for me :/ purely anecdotal of course, and i haven't found a lot of information supporting my experience...
mnd999 5y ago
I wish more people would run FreeBSD because it would make both Linux and FreeBSD stronger. Single platforms stagnate, we’ve seen it before with IE6 and we’re starting to see it again.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  > Single platforms stagnate, we’ve seen it before with IE6 and we’re starting to see it again. They do, but at least chromium is open source. If it stagnated like IE6 then someone would fork it.
  - foepys 5y ago
    > someone would fork it. This myth needs to die. Yes, somebody would fork it but it would very, very quickly become stale as well. It costs tens of millions to develop a browser engine nowadays, it's not something a few hobbyists can develop in the evening after their day job. Microsoft didn't choose Chromium for their new Edge engine because they love Google, they chose it purely from an economic point of view. Even Microsoft doesn't want to develop a browser engine. Microsoft.
- tristor 5y ago
  Ironically, as much as I love FreeBSD, I am being forced to migrate to Linux because the USB mass storage support on FreeBSD is broken on Dell rack servers. I recently migrated to a newer generation Dell server w/ 16TB disks to replace my aging fleet of R710s and cut my power usage considerably, and found I could no longer reliably keep a server online if I boot from USB. There's several threads about this on the FreeBSD forums, including one I started, and the general consensus of the community is "don't do that thing you're doing that works perfectly fine on every other OS, even Windows." not "FreeBSD is broken and this bug should be fixed." I've fought the good fight for FreeBSD for more than a decade, and my last system running it is getting Debian installed on it in the near-term future.
historyloop 5y ago
Google already singlehandedly controls the web standards. Firefox and Safari are the last obstacles to them basically privatizing the web. The independent Chromium distributions do very little to that effect, as they're not incentivized to specifically disable features Google puts in. If Firefox goes away, kiss the open web goodbye. We'll have it on paper, but just that. It'll be Google's web.
- vbezhenar 5y ago
  Safari is the real alternative keeping web open. Firefox does not serve that role anymore.
  - wongarsu 5y ago
    Safari is only available on one platform (that internationally has a small market share) and isn't all that great about implementing web standards in a timely manner. To me, Firefox is the far better alternative. But really, why should there be only one?
    - historyloop 5y ago
      > isn't all that great about implementing web standards in a timely manner. It's not good at implementing standards in timely manner which Chrome implements before they're even standards (and then become standards when Google pushes them to become so). Interesting isn't it. That literally goes back to what I said. Without Firefox and Safari, Google can declare anything it wants a standard and implement it LITERALLY yesterday. Among standards Safari is slow to implement in "timely manner" is web pages connecting to USB devices, Bluetooth and a plethora of other nonsense which Google keeps pushing through because they want the web to be the application OS for everyone, and then slap ads on it.
    - vbezhenar 5y ago
      Safari is used by rich people who can afford iPhones and Macs. Those people are valuable visitors for many websites. And Safari marketshare (with iOS) is not tiny. So plenty of websites do care about Safari compatibility.
fgonzag 5y ago
Were you around during the IE and ActiveX days? Because that's what happens when a single vendor gets to dictate web standards.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  You say that like Google doesn't pretty much already dictate web standards.
Tagbert 5y ago
Firefox is more like 8-9% of the desktop market. It’s hard for alternative browsers to hold share on mobile where the defaults are set by the platform owners.
MiddleEndian 5y ago
I would be very sad if Firefox switched to Chromium. Not just for standards-reasons, but because Firefox, with some userstyles tweaking, supports multiple rows of tabs, which Chromium-based browsers cannot do. Also keyboard-based navigation shortcuts are much better, unclear to how much that has to do with Chromium or not. Also I'm not sure if Chromium-based browsers support the full extent of uBlock Origin.
- sharps1 5y ago
  https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b... uBO works best on Firefox. There is no CNAME uncloaking on chromium browsers, except for Brave which does this as part of their shields. https://brave.com/privacy-updates-6/ https://brave.com/privacy-updates-6/ Vivaldi also have a built ad / tracker blocker where lists can be chosen.

by tapoxi 5y ago

everdrive 5y ago

> wish they'd just become a privacy-focused Chromium fork because These already exist, and Chromium is far from perfect. I'm glad there's a viable competitor.

tehbeard 5y ago
I'm not sure I'd classify it as viable with how Mozilla middle management has acted the last few years.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  It's at least technically viable for now
handrous 5y ago
Safari and, especially, its iOS monopoly (for the engine, at least) are the only thing keeping Google from dominating and nearly everyone from only testing against Chrome, now that MS switched to using Chrome's engine and IE is finally nearing the end even in the important niches where it had been hanging on. FF doesn't have enough "normies" using it, isn't the default anywhere, and its trend-line is heading the wrong direction.
buu700 5y ago
In my experience, Firefox actually has better performance than Chrome nowadays — particularly on Apple Silicon, where the difference is stark and dramatic. And with the new "Proton" interface, IMO Firefox finally looks at least as nice as Chrome out of the box. Firefox mobile still has some catching up to do on the overall UI/UX, but it's not too far off, and the fact that it allows extensions is nice.
- awoimbee 5y ago
  But chrome uses the GPU a lot more, thus making everything faster. Firefox right now is like Linux a few years back: better CPU performance but little to no GPU acceleration
  - coder543 5y ago
    > But chrome uses the GPU a lot more [citation needed] Firefox page rendering is GPU accelerated. It's called WebRender. Your information seems to be out of date. Article from 2017 when WebRender was still being prepared for release: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2017/10/the-whole-web-at-maximum-fps-how-webrender-gets-rid-of-jank/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2017/10/the-whole-web-at-maximum-f... Current platform support list, which seems to be "almost everyone": https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/GFX/WebRender_Where https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/GFX/WebRender_Where
- mu_ddib 5y ago
  this is interesting - i've had the opposite experience on both x86 and ARM Macs to the extent that it's not really a viable browser for me :/ purely anecdotal of course, and i haven't found a lot of information supporting my experience...

mnd999 5y ago

I wish more people would run FreeBSD because it would make both Linux and FreeBSD stronger. Single platforms stagnate, we’ve seen it before with IE6 and we’re starting to see it again.

nicoburns 5y ago
> Single platforms stagnate, we’ve seen it before with IE6 and we’re starting to see it again. They do, but at least chromium is open source. If it stagnated like IE6 then someone would fork it.
- foepys 5y ago
  > someone would fork it. This myth needs to die. Yes, somebody would fork it but it would very, very quickly become stale as well. It costs tens of millions to develop a browser engine nowadays, it's not something a few hobbyists can develop in the evening after their day job. Microsoft didn't choose Chromium for their new Edge engine because they love Google, they chose it purely from an economic point of view. Even Microsoft doesn't want to develop a browser engine. Microsoft.
tristor 5y ago
Ironically, as much as I love FreeBSD, I am being forced to migrate to Linux because the USB mass storage support on FreeBSD is broken on Dell rack servers. I recently migrated to a newer generation Dell server w/ 16TB disks to replace my aging fleet of R710s and cut my power usage considerably, and found I could no longer reliably keep a server online if I boot from USB. There's several threads about this on the FreeBSD forums, including one I started, and the general consensus of the community is "don't do that thing you're doing that works perfectly fine on every other OS, even Windows." not "FreeBSD is broken and this bug should be fixed." I've fought the good fight for FreeBSD for more than a decade, and my last system running it is getting Debian installed on it in the near-term future.

historyloop 5y ago

Google already singlehandedly controls the web standards. Firefox and Safari are the last obstacles to them basically privatizing the web. The independent Chromium distributions do very little to that effect, as they're not incentivized to specifically disable features Google puts in. If Firefox goes away, kiss the open web goodbye. We'll have it on paper, but just that. It'll be Google's web.

vbezhenar 5y ago
Safari is the real alternative keeping web open. Firefox does not serve that role anymore.
- wongarsu 5y ago
  Safari is only available on one platform (that internationally has a small market share) and isn't all that great about implementing web standards in a timely manner. To me, Firefox is the far better alternative. But really, why should there be only one?
  - historyloop 5y ago
    > isn't all that great about implementing web standards in a timely manner. It's not good at implementing standards in timely manner which Chrome implements before they're even standards (and then become standards when Google pushes them to become so). Interesting isn't it. That literally goes back to what I said. Without Firefox and Safari, Google can declare anything it wants a standard and implement it LITERALLY yesterday. Among standards Safari is slow to implement in "timely manner" is web pages connecting to USB devices, Bluetooth and a plethora of other nonsense which Google keeps pushing through because they want the web to be the application OS for everyone, and then slap ads on it.
  - vbezhenar 5y ago
    Safari is used by rich people who can afford iPhones and Macs. Those people are valuable visitors for many websites. And Safari marketshare (with iOS) is not tiny. So plenty of websites do care about Safari compatibility.

fgonzag 5y ago

Were you around during the IE and ActiveX days? Because that's what happens when a single vendor gets to dictate web standards.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
You say that like Google doesn't pretty much already dictate web standards.

Tagbert 5y ago

Firefox is more like 8-9% of the desktop market. It’s hard for alternative browsers to hold share on mobile where the defaults are set by the platform owners.

MiddleEndian 5y ago

I would be very sad if Firefox switched to Chromium. Not just for standards-reasons, but because Firefox, with some userstyles tweaking, supports multiple rows of tabs, which Chromium-based browsers cannot do. Also keyboard-based navigation shortcuts are much better, unclear to how much that has to do with Chromium or not. Also I'm not sure if Chromium-based browsers support the full extent of uBlock Origin.

sharps1 5y ago
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b... uBO works best on Firefox. There is no CNAME uncloaking on chromium browsers, except for Brave which does this as part of their shields. https://brave.com/privacy-updates-6/ https://brave.com/privacy-updates-6/ Vivaldi also have a built ad / tracker blocker where lists can be chosen.