11 ms·

It's time for mass-migration to Firefox. Only losing users is going to tell Google that this is a horrible solution to enforce.

by erklik 5y ago

vadfa 5y ago
The only browser that's been losing users for years is Firefox. That already tells Google all they need to know. (It also tells Mozilla what they need to know; pity they are deaf.)
- erklik 5y ago
  Mozilla annoys me. Truly it does. However, it's the organisation. Firefox as a browser, especially dev tools, seems better in every day use than Chrome does. I am really not sure why they keep losing users. I do remember being massive performance issues in the past, but that's really not the case today (at least in my experience)
  - tut-urut-utut 5y ago
    They just can't compete with Google and their massive marketing budget and shady bait & switch business practices.
    - vadfa 5y ago
      Almost all wounds Mozilla has are self-inflicted.
      - josefx 5y ago
        On Android Chrome has to be installed as preferred browser or the phone manufacturers get blocked from Googles other services. As much as I like to bash Mozillas leadership, Google has taken every shady (and sometimes illegal) shit 90s era Microsoft pulled and turned it up to eleven.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      They could, if they stopped doing all of their hobby stuff.
    - chii 5y ago
      i dont think it's merely marketing budget, thought that helps. People who got marketed to convert, and hence, the product is indeed good based on this metric. Firefox does seem to lag behind in terms of performance, esp. on mobile. Firefox also has poorer video rendering speed i think - i get more skipped frames than chrome. I tolerate it, but many users don't. Firefox has some difficulty being deployed in an enterprise environment (aka, an organizationally managed profile, which chrome has). This has led to enterprises adopting chrome as a primary browser (over firefox), and this may lead to familiarity which causes them to also use chrome at home. There's a myriad of issues with firefox, and it is rooted at the organizational level, rather than the technical level, but these issues bleed down into the technical level.
      - rejectfinite 5y ago
        >Firefox also has poorer video rendering speed i think - i get more skipped frames than chrome. I tolerate it, but many users don't. I do not have this problem in Firefox anymore. I used to but i updates fixed it. >Firefox has some difficulty being deployed in an enterprise environment (aka, an organizationally managed profile, which chrome has). This has led to enterprises adopting chrome as a primary browser (over firefox), and this may lead to familiarity which causes them to also use chrome at home. GPO exists for Firefox now and works great, I have implemented it. But what I actually see for enterprise customers is a move to MS Edge. The Windows account integration, control and the fact that on Windows 10 it has really good performance means there is no need for Chrome or FF unless Edge breaks (have had some issues with antivirus breaking it)
  - ChuckNorris89 5y ago
    >I am really not sure why they keep losing users. Because, number one, they keep constantly making radical UI/UX changes that frustrate and alienate their long term users who would rather they keep the "older look" which they got used to and works just fine for them, and number two, most websites are lazy so their devs only optimize for Chrome, even going the extra mile to explicitly state that "For best experience use Chrome" <face_palm> Edit: changes in tone and corrections after getting off the bus
    - quonn 5y ago
      I think the UI is finally good on macOS. The only thing I find strange now is the button-like tab style. Which seems like a minor issue.
      - ntp85 5y ago
        So do I. The UI also looks pretty good on GNOME.
      - blitzar 5y ago
        But does it still halve my battery life?
        tfehring 5y ago
        Yes, at least as of a month ago.
      - asdff 5y ago
        you can even disable all that if you want. its completely customizable.
    - RheingoldRiver 5y ago
      > Because they keep making stupid UI)UX choices than alienate their users Cannot overstate this enough. They keep randomly changing their UI constantly, and it's especially frustrating when you have a bunch of custom CSS. I'm a bunch of versions behind & dreading updating because I don't want to spend the hours it'll take to fix my shit for their new version. I honestly hate this browser so much at this point, but everything else (i.e. Chrome) is so much worse that I'm stuck....
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    "Firefox as a browser, especially dev tools, seems better in every day use than Chrome does. " Cannot confirm at all. I do not know any feature in ff dev tools I am missing in chrome, but the other way around lots of it. Mainly: editing and saving directly in the debugger! Could also be my ignorance, but I regulary do debugging in FF and it works, but way less efficient. Meaning I browse with FF, but work with chrome.
    - maddyboo 5y ago
      I mostly agree, but one really nice feature FF has is the ability to see a diff of the CSS properties you've changed in the inspector: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Tools/Page_Inspector/How_to/Examine_and_edit_CSS#track_changes https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Tools/Page_Inspecto...
    - yfkar 5y ago
      One thing where I've used Firefox devtools instead of Chrome is when debugging font usage (which is not very often). Chrome tells you the used font for a single element on a pretty generic level, e.g. "Lato — Local file" or "Lato — Network resource". Firefox Inspector has a Fonts tab that lets you list all the fonts used on a page. It tells you a more specific font name, e.g. "Lato Regular", the relevant @font-face rule and also the font URL if it's a network resource.
    - marcosdumay 5y ago
      > Mainly: editing and saving directly in the debugger! Hum... Firefox does that. I know because every time I mistakenly start saving I ask what is the point of it. But well, looks like it's useful for somebody.
      - hutzlibu 5y ago
        Erm, it can edit and save code live in a debbing session? Also, how can I edit code? It is non editable for me.
        marcosdumay 5y ago
  - maccard 5y ago
    But you're ok with google the organization?
  - krageon 5y ago
    > dev tools Chrome's devtools have been superior (faster, more reliable, more featureful) for years near as I can tell (and everyone I work with). I am curious what makes you feel firefox's devtools are better.
    - k_ 5y ago
      Alternative take: [dev]tools are only as powerful as how well you know them. I'd like to think both firefox devtools and chrome devtools as highly capable, but you'll get way more out of the one you're used to, whichever it is.
      - Jach 5y ago
        Another alternate take: everything since Firebug has been cake icing, what differences there are now on top of that base feature set are minimal.
      - krageon 5y ago
        The two devtools purport to do almost the exact same things, with a practically identical interface. The details are where the usability differences lie, such as chrome's vastly superior formatting/debugging story. I only moved to Chrome after working with firebug (!) for years and then working with firefox's builtin devtools. If anything, I should hate Chrome's devtools the most because I know them least well.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  I wonder why. It's not like Firefox is a bad browser.
  - prox 5y ago
    Not only is it not bad, it’s pretty good. I have been using it for a decade and its fast, superior privacy above Chrome, devtools do everything I need. I test on Chrome, and I personally don’t think switching is that big a deal that some commenters make it out to be. It’s just as fast as Chrome or faster, the UX is similar enough not be stalled for long if you need to switch. It’s really worth a shot!
  - chii 5y ago
    > It's not like Firefox is a bad browser. compared to chrome, firefox no longer has an edge. Chrome's restrictive addons is what made firefox stronger. But ever since firefox removed the old XUL style addons, their utility has drastically dropped against chrome. I was very angry at their poor choice, as some really excellent, but unmaintained addons no longer work. I put up with firefox, just so i can give them some boost (whatever that might amount to), but obviously not that many users would sacrifice their browsing experience for such purposes. Firefox should be the premier customizable browser, with more addons than chrome. Instead, firefox chose to copy chrome. Thus, it is forever relegated to being second.
    - MomoXenosaga 5y ago
      Yes this is true. Mozilla neutered extensions on Android. I'm using Firefox nightly and I have to jump through hoops to get the extensions I want. Far too complicated for most users I'm sure.
    - progval 5y ago
      I also hate they had to kill XUL addons, but they had good reasons to do so: https://yoric.github.io/post/why-did-mozilla-remove-xul-addons/ https://yoric.github.io/post/why-did-mozilla-remove-xul-addo...
      - 5y ago
- feketegy 5y ago
  They don't have any coherent marketing strategy, most people still think that Firefox is this sluggish browser that don't support anything. Also, most non-technical people use the default browser that's installed on the OS whether that's Safari or Edge. When manifest v3 kicks in and we'll see the true ad horror that's the Internet today without ad blockers, maybe then we'll jump to a more privacy first browser. Until then nothing will happen.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    I pity anyone, surfing the web without adblockers. I am regulary shocked, when I use a browser without one.
- GoblinSlayer 5y ago
  It's because Chrome is preinstalled on Android, Internet Explorer all over again.
- chucky 5y ago
  What does it tell Mozilla that they need to know? Because I certainly don't understand, but I'm a happy Firefox user so obviously I'm not part of any exodus.
dobladov 5y ago
Is v3 an horrible solution or the deprecation of v2 in 2023? I ported one of my extensions to v3 and while the process was not completely trivial it did not took more than a few hours, in my opinion the change is worth it this makes extensions more secure. As far as I know Firefox is also moving to v3, maybe not enforcing it for now, but they will probably deprecate v2 at some point.
- kevingadd 5y ago
  An extension API that can't implement ad-blockers properly is an extension API that is broken by design. So yes, it's a horrible solution.
- input_sh 5y ago
  While they're interested in maintaining compatibility with Chrome's v3, there's no standard that forces them to make every single v3 change Chrome does. v2 also already differs in some ways in which Firefox thinks it makes sense. I'm not scared at all that they're gonna deprecate webRequest.BlockingResponse in favour of declarativeNetRequest, which is the specific API function that adblockers rely on. After all, that function has nothing to do with security, best you could argue is that it's related to performance due to filter lists becoming absurdly long.
  - dotancohen 5y ago
    In the context of `webRequest.BlockingResponse` being a performance bottleneck due to filter lists becoming absurdly long, it does in fact become a security issue. Filter lists are as long as they are because that is the amount of domains that have demonstrated an interest in harming our security (and for many people, online privacy _is_ physical security). Filterlists are blacklists, not whitelists, so they only grow when well-known entities play foul.
- selcuka 5y ago
  It's not only a simple Manifest version change. They have also deprecated the webRequest API, which is essential to implement any type of content filter or an ad blocker.
echelon 5y ago
It's time for antitrust breakup of Google. America's top search engine and America's top internet ads company has the America's top browser and pays to be the default search engine for America's top cell phone?
gman83 5y ago
The day that adblockers stop working on Chrome is the day we'll see that mass-migration.
- mda 5y ago
  Which will probably never happen.
  - mrkramer 5y ago
    Yea because of legal antitrust reasons but Google will try to disrupt Ad Blockers as much as they are technically and legally allowed to do.
- soundnote 5y ago
  People already use Chrome on mobile for the most part, and it has no adblockers whatsoever. A depressing number of users use the web via the Chrome search bar on their phone, and even if they use a browser they go even to familiar sites by googing them.
chinathrow 5y ago
I am already here since the Phoenix times. Come over guys! https://website-archive.mozilla.org/www.mozilla.org/firefox_releasenotes/en-us/firefox/releases/0.5 https://website-archive.mozilla.org/www.mozilla.org/firefox_...
kovac 5y ago
The only reason I don't use Firefox is mozilla. I will never use it as long as it's under mozilla. I use Vivaldi, choosing to support a smaller, genuine business with no bullshit. I hope they'll eventually to develop their own engine.
2Gkashmiri 5y ago
What... Is the appeal of brave ? I hear it has crypto and shit but why not install Firefox with ubo and be done with it? I feel the "cool" factor of brave is silly as they are just fueling chromium. Why don't these chromium forks base on Firefox instead and do some leg work with the benefit of helping the internet as a whole ? I hear someone said on hn a long time ago, building on ff is a pita. Well guess what, Firefox folk do nightly builds of a boat load of versions and flavours and shit. Why can't you change a theme and call it a day?
- cinquemb 5y ago
  As someone who wouldn't mind if Mozilla post Eich can die under a metadata drone strike (doubly so for google) and will still use my FF fork and avoid chrome/chromium based browsers like the plague, brave, seems like they are willing to build in support for decentralized (to me at least) and p2p web directly into the browser (rather than leave it up to potentially less performant 3rd party extensions which may be ok, but not ideal in ff) than all the crap I have to compile out of ff occasionally.
  - 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
    why cant brave build on top of firefox?
    - cinquemb 5y ago
      See Brendan's response to me last week[0], which I think comes down to feature set they want to support rather than do all the work it would require to build that in servo now (they went from gecko [no public info on this] -> electron -> and now chromium. they would have to migrate from chromium -> servo). I wish they did, and just cared less about all the other features that were missing from gecko (but that's just be being selfish and not wanting to build out native stuff myself lol) [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28605711 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28605711
      - 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
sneak 5y ago
Firefox is a lot less secure than Chromium.

It's time for mass-migration to Firefox. Only losing users is going to tell Google that this is a horrible solution to enforce.

by erklik 5y ago

It's time for mass-migration to Firefox. Only losing users is going to tell Google that this is a horrible solution to enforce.

vadfa 5y ago

The only browser that's been losing users for years is Firefox. That already tells Google all they need to know. (It also tells Mozilla what they need to know; pity they are deaf.)

erklik 5y ago
Mozilla annoys me. Truly it does. However, it's the organisation. Firefox as a browser, especially dev tools, seems better in every day use than Chrome does. I am really not sure why they keep losing users. I do remember being massive performance issues in the past, but that's really not the case today (at least in my experience)
- tut-urut-utut 5y ago
  They just can't compete with Google and their massive marketing budget and shady bait & switch business practices.
  - vadfa 5y ago
    Almost all wounds Mozilla has are self-inflicted.
    - josefx 5y ago
      On Android Chrome has to be installed as preferred browser or the phone manufacturers get blocked from Googles other services. As much as I like to bash Mozillas leadership, Google has taken every shady (and sometimes illegal) shit 90s era Microsoft pulled and turned it up to eleven.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    They could, if they stopped doing all of their hobby stuff.
  - chii 5y ago
    i dont think it's merely marketing budget, thought that helps. People who got marketed to convert, and hence, the product is indeed good based on this metric. Firefox does seem to lag behind in terms of performance, esp. on mobile. Firefox also has poorer video rendering speed i think - i get more skipped frames than chrome. I tolerate it, but many users don't. Firefox has some difficulty being deployed in an enterprise environment (aka, an organizationally managed profile, which chrome has). This has led to enterprises adopting chrome as a primary browser (over firefox), and this may lead to familiarity which causes them to also use chrome at home. There's a myriad of issues with firefox, and it is rooted at the organizational level, rather than the technical level, but these issues bleed down into the technical level.
    - rejectfinite 5y ago
      >Firefox also has poorer video rendering speed i think - i get more skipped frames than chrome. I tolerate it, but many users don't. I do not have this problem in Firefox anymore. I used to but i updates fixed it. >Firefox has some difficulty being deployed in an enterprise environment (aka, an organizationally managed profile, which chrome has). This has led to enterprises adopting chrome as a primary browser (over firefox), and this may lead to familiarity which causes them to also use chrome at home. GPO exists for Firefox now and works great, I have implemented it. But what I actually see for enterprise customers is a move to MS Edge. The Windows account integration, control and the fact that on Windows 10 it has really good performance means there is no need for Chrome or FF unless Edge breaks (have had some issues with antivirus breaking it)
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago
  >I am really not sure why they keep losing users. Because, number one, they keep constantly making radical UI/UX changes that frustrate and alienate their long term users who would rather they keep the "older look" which they got used to and works just fine for them, and number two, most websites are lazy so their devs only optimize for Chrome, even going the extra mile to explicitly state that "For best experience use Chrome" <face_palm> Edit: changes in tone and corrections after getting off the bus
  - quonn 5y ago
    I think the UI is finally good on macOS. The only thing I find strange now is the button-like tab style. Which seems like a minor issue.
    - ntp85 5y ago
      So do I. The UI also looks pretty good on GNOME.
    - blitzar 5y ago
      But does it still halve my battery life?
      - tfehring 5y ago
        Yes, at least as of a month ago.
    - asdff 5y ago
      you can even disable all that if you want. its completely customizable.
  - RheingoldRiver 5y ago
    > Because they keep making stupid UI)UX choices than alienate their users Cannot overstate this enough. They keep randomly changing their UI constantly, and it's especially frustrating when you have a bunch of custom CSS. I'm a bunch of versions behind & dreading updating because I don't want to spend the hours it'll take to fix my shit for their new version. I honestly hate this browser so much at this point, but everything else (i.e. Chrome) is so much worse that I'm stuck....
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  "Firefox as a browser, especially dev tools, seems better in every day use than Chrome does. " Cannot confirm at all. I do not know any feature in ff dev tools I am missing in chrome, but the other way around lots of it. Mainly: editing and saving directly in the debugger! Could also be my ignorance, but I regulary do debugging in FF and it works, but way less efficient. Meaning I browse with FF, but work with chrome.
  - maddyboo 5y ago
    I mostly agree, but one really nice feature FF has is the ability to see a diff of the CSS properties you've changed in the inspector: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Tools/Page_Inspector/How_to/Examine_and_edit_CSS#track_changes https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Tools/Page_Inspecto...
  - yfkar 5y ago
    One thing where I've used Firefox devtools instead of Chrome is when debugging font usage (which is not very often). Chrome tells you the used font for a single element on a pretty generic level, e.g. "Lato — Local file" or "Lato — Network resource". Firefox Inspector has a Fonts tab that lets you list all the fonts used on a page. It tells you a more specific font name, e.g. "Lato Regular", the relevant @font-face rule and also the font URL if it's a network resource.
  - marcosdumay 5y ago
    > Mainly: editing and saving directly in the debugger! Hum... Firefox does that. I know because every time I mistakenly start saving I ask what is the point of it. But well, looks like it's useful for somebody.
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      Erm, it can edit and save code live in a debbing session? Also, how can I edit code? It is non editable for me.
      - marcosdumay 5y ago
- maccard 5y ago
  But you're ok with google the organization?
- krageon 5y ago
  > dev tools Chrome's devtools have been superior (faster, more reliable, more featureful) for years near as I can tell (and everyone I work with). I am curious what makes you feel firefox's devtools are better.
  - k_ 5y ago
    Alternative take: [dev]tools are only as powerful as how well you know them. I'd like to think both firefox devtools and chrome devtools as highly capable, but you'll get way more out of the one you're used to, whichever it is.
    - Jach 5y ago
      Another alternate take: everything since Firebug has been cake icing, what differences there are now on top of that base feature set are minimal.
    - krageon 5y ago
      The two devtools purport to do almost the exact same things, with a practically identical interface. The details are where the usability differences lie, such as chrome's vastly superior formatting/debugging story. I only moved to Chrome after working with firebug (!) for years and then working with firefox's builtin devtools. If anything, I should hate Chrome's devtools the most because I know them least well.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
I wonder why. It's not like Firefox is a bad browser.
- prox 5y ago
  Not only is it not bad, it’s pretty good. I have been using it for a decade and its fast, superior privacy above Chrome, devtools do everything I need. I test on Chrome, and I personally don’t think switching is that big a deal that some commenters make it out to be. It’s just as fast as Chrome or faster, the UX is similar enough not be stalled for long if you need to switch. It’s really worth a shot!
- chii 5y ago
  > It's not like Firefox is a bad browser. compared to chrome, firefox no longer has an edge. Chrome's restrictive addons is what made firefox stronger. But ever since firefox removed the old XUL style addons, their utility has drastically dropped against chrome. I was very angry at their poor choice, as some really excellent, but unmaintained addons no longer work. I put up with firefox, just so i can give them some boost (whatever that might amount to), but obviously not that many users would sacrifice their browsing experience for such purposes. Firefox should be the premier customizable browser, with more addons than chrome. Instead, firefox chose to copy chrome. Thus, it is forever relegated to being second.
  - MomoXenosaga 5y ago
    Yes this is true. Mozilla neutered extensions on Android. I'm using Firefox nightly and I have to jump through hoops to get the extensions I want. Far too complicated for most users I'm sure.
  - progval 5y ago
    I also hate they had to kill XUL addons, but they had good reasons to do so: https://yoric.github.io/post/why-did-mozilla-remove-xul-addons/ https://yoric.github.io/post/why-did-mozilla-remove-xul-addo...
    - 5y ago
feketegy 5y ago
They don't have any coherent marketing strategy, most people still think that Firefox is this sluggish browser that don't support anything. Also, most non-technical people use the default browser that's installed on the OS whether that's Safari or Edge. When manifest v3 kicks in and we'll see the true ad horror that's the Internet today without ad blockers, maybe then we'll jump to a more privacy first browser. Until then nothing will happen.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  I pity anyone, surfing the web without adblockers. I am regulary shocked, when I use a browser without one.
GoblinSlayer 5y ago
It's because Chrome is preinstalled on Android, Internet Explorer all over again.
chucky 5y ago
What does it tell Mozilla that they need to know? Because I certainly don't understand, but I'm a happy Firefox user so obviously I'm not part of any exodus.

dobladov 5y ago

Is v3 an horrible solution or the deprecation of v2 in 2023? I ported one of my extensions to v3 and while the process was not completely trivial it did not took more than a few hours, in my opinion the change is worth it this makes extensions more secure. As far as I know Firefox is also moving to v3, maybe not enforcing it for now, but they will probably deprecate v2 at some point.

kevingadd 5y ago
An extension API that can't implement ad-blockers properly is an extension API that is broken by design. So yes, it's a horrible solution.
input_sh 5y ago
While they're interested in maintaining compatibility with Chrome's v3, there's no standard that forces them to make every single v3 change Chrome does. v2 also already differs in some ways in which Firefox thinks it makes sense. I'm not scared at all that they're gonna deprecate webRequest.BlockingResponse in favour of declarativeNetRequest, which is the specific API function that adblockers rely on. After all, that function has nothing to do with security, best you could argue is that it's related to performance due to filter lists becoming absurdly long.
- dotancohen 5y ago
  In the context of `webRequest.BlockingResponse` being a performance bottleneck due to filter lists becoming absurdly long, it does in fact become a security issue. Filter lists are as long as they are because that is the amount of domains that have demonstrated an interest in harming our security (and for many people, online privacy _is_ physical security). Filterlists are blacklists, not whitelists, so they only grow when well-known entities play foul.
selcuka 5y ago
It's not only a simple Manifest version change. They have also deprecated the webRequest API, which is essential to implement any type of content filter or an ad blocker.

echelon 5y ago

It's time for antitrust breakup of Google. America's top search engine and America's top internet ads company has the America's top browser and pays to be the default search engine for America's top cell phone?

gman83 5y ago

The day that adblockers stop working on Chrome is the day we'll see that mass-migration.

mda 5y ago
Which will probably never happen.
- mrkramer 5y ago
  Yea because of legal antitrust reasons but Google will try to disrupt Ad Blockers as much as they are technically and legally allowed to do.
soundnote 5y ago
People already use Chrome on mobile for the most part, and it has no adblockers whatsoever. A depressing number of users use the web via the Chrome search bar on their phone, and even if they use a browser they go even to familiar sites by googing them.

chinathrow 5y ago

I am already here since the Phoenix times. Come over guys! https://website-archive.mozilla.org/www.mozilla.org/firefox_releasenotes/en-us/firefox/releases/0.5 https://website-archive.mozilla.org/www.mozilla.org/firefox_...

kovac 5y ago

The only reason I don't use Firefox is mozilla. I will never use it as long as it's under mozilla. I use Vivaldi, choosing to support a smaller, genuine business with no bullshit. I hope they'll eventually to develop their own engine.

2Gkashmiri 5y ago

What... Is the appeal of brave ? I hear it has crypto and shit but why not install Firefox with ubo and be done with it? I feel the "cool" factor of brave is silly as they are just fueling chromium. Why don't these chromium forks base on Firefox instead and do some leg work with the benefit of helping the internet as a whole ? I hear someone said on hn a long time ago, building on ff is a pita. Well guess what, Firefox folk do nightly builds of a boat load of versions and flavours and shit. Why can't you change a theme and call it a day?

cinquemb 5y ago
As someone who wouldn't mind if Mozilla post Eich can die under a metadata drone strike (doubly so for google) and will still use my FF fork and avoid chrome/chromium based browsers like the plague, brave, seems like they are willing to build in support for decentralized (to me at least) and p2p web directly into the browser (rather than leave it up to potentially less performant 3rd party extensions which may be ok, but not ideal in ff) than all the crap I have to compile out of ff occasionally.
- 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
  why cant brave build on top of firefox?
  - cinquemb 5y ago
    See Brendan's response to me last week[0], which I think comes down to feature set they want to support rather than do all the work it would require to build that in servo now (they went from gecko [no public info on this] -> electron -> and now chromium. they would have to migrate from chromium -> servo). I wish they did, and just cared less about all the other features that were missing from gecko (but that's just be being selfish and not wanting to build out native stuff myself lol) [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28605711 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28605711
    - 2Gkashmiri 5y ago

sneak 5y ago

Firefox is a lot less secure than Chromium.