4 ms·

You know, there used to be good things about Firefox other than them not being run by Google or based on Chrome. That's been a while though.

You know, there used to be good things about Firefox *other* than them not being run by Google or based on Chrome. That's been a while though.

the_duke 5y ago
On Linux + Wayland Firefox very notably has the best performance for me ( except certain very JS heavy/Chrome optimized sites)
asabla 5y ago
Kind of, their multi-account stuff is truly a game changer in my day to day workflows. I just wish handling profiles were a bit better
- commoner 5y ago
  Have you tried the Profile Switcher for Firefox add-on? It works just like the profile switcher on Chrome. - Add-on: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/profile-switcher/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/profile-switc... - Connector (required for add-on): https://github.com/null-dev/firefox-profile-switcher-connector https://github.com/null-dev/firefox-profile-switcher-connect... - Source: https://github.com/null-dev/firefox-profile-switcher https://github.com/null-dev/firefox-profile-switcher
wongarsu 5y ago
All browsers have gotten kind of sameish. I don't feel much difference between Edge, Chrome and Firefox (on Windows). A couple minor differences like Edge having native vertical tabs, where I have to go to a more powerful but less performant and less stable extension in Firefox, or Firefox having the sync feature I trust more. But overall it feels hard to find good reasons to use one browser over another. Firefox's multi-account containers are the only major feature I could name that makes a major difference.
- 2ion 5y ago
  > multi-account containers are the only major feature I could name that makes a major difference. And for me, that's a key difference. Chrome, Chromium, Opera, Vivaldi, Brave, all garbage --- staying logged into several AWS SSM sessions in different accounts at the same time w/ full features, logged into several paypal accounts at once etc etc etc. The containers fix so much of web dumbness that they've become indespensable in my workflow, both at work and at home. Unless the other browsers have feature parity regarding MAC, they are not even among the competition.
- BuckRogers 5y ago
  I agree on containers being Firefox's only headline feature. To potentially add to your comparison list, Brave is the only other fully open-source browser other than Firefox. I'm an ex-FF user after 19 years of dedication, and now use Edge, but Brave is my close 2nd choice due to its focus on OSS transparency and privacy. And Brave is the only browser that's Chromium-based, fully open-source, and focuses on privacy. If these things interest someone at least.
- MiddleEndian 5y ago
  For me, Firefox has a lot of subtle niceties that I miss if I'm using Chrome to test something out. Firefox has much more efficient browsing keyboard shortcuts (although old Opera was comparably good), / allows you to jump to text where you're typing and you can use ' to search only texts of links, then you can just press return/enter to click links. Tab management is better. Custom CSS allows multiple rows of tabs at the top and allows you to hide the close tab X's entirely, so you can close tabs only with middle click or double click without having to target (or avoid) a tiny close button. Also keyboard shortcuts CTRL Shift PgUp/PgDn to rearrange tabs which doesn't seem to be present in Chrome. CTRL+Tab as an option to browse tabs in recently used order (leaving CTRL pgup/pgdn for left/right order). Also for whatever reason Chrome doesn't let you mute individual tabs, only muting entire sites, while Firefox lets you mute individual tabs. Extensions in general on Firefox are a bit more powerful, uBlock Origin on Firefox is a bit more effective at blocking ads than it is on Chrome. On Android Firefox supports uBlock Origin while Chrome has no extensions, but honestly I think every mobile browser is pretty shit (just Firefox slightly less so).
danShumway 5y ago
Firefox's anti-fingerprinting features are being pulled up directly from Tor, if you seriously want to resist fingerprinting in your normal browsing, you use Firefox. Additionally, Firefox has the best extension support of any browser. Ublock Origin works better in Firefox than it does in Chrome, today. Firefox containers also don't really have a good equivalent in other browsers; they are an incredibly useful tool for easy separation of site data -- and containers are exposed as an API that extensions can take advantage of. That kind of easy access to privacy controls matters because privacy controls have to be simple enough to use that people can actually use them day-to-day and not just once and a while when they're doing something sensitive. On the developer side of things, Firefox also outperforms Chrome in its CSS developer tools; I use Chrome for debugging Javascript, I usually prefer to debug CSS and prototype layout in Firefox. There are other advantages, Firefox and Chrome kind of go in different directions in what they prioritize for developers. But the extension support is the big one. Properly configured, Firefox will be more private than any other browser, including stuff like DeGoogled Chromium, because DeGoogled Chromium is still based on Chrome and is still missing the extension APIs that Ublock Origin uses in Firefox, it's still missing the anti-fingerprinting features from Tor. People can debate a lot of stuff (I like Firefox's resource usage but performance is subjective and user-dependent), and people get mad about Firefox defaults and decisions the company makes (sometimes legitimately, Firefox often makes bad decisions), but just as a private browser, Firefox is objectively more capable today than any other full-featured browser I've ever seen. I don't think that's just my opinion, Firefox objectively has more privacy features and better privacy APIs for extensions.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  The problem with fingerprinting is that Firefox's market share is so low that using Firefox is a pretty unique fingerprint in an of itself.
  - est31 5y ago
    A 1% browser (and Firefox is solidly above that) means approximately 6-7 bits of entropy. If Firefox's fingerprinting protection removes at least these many bits, then it's worth using Firefox.
cycomanic 5y ago
Not being run by google is already a _very_ good thing. That said in my experience Firefox is much faster than chrome both on Linux and Android, on top of that I find the extensions available for Firefox much better as well.
- coldpie 5y ago
  Having uBlock Origin and NoScript in a mobile browser is amazing.
  - seanw444 5y ago
    Not just for getting rid of the annoyance, but uBlock Origin also makes the browser perform way better too. And it's especially noticeable on mobile.
  - causality0 5y ago
    It was better having all the extensions in a mobile browser. Like a damn user agent switcher. Firefox is not worse than Chrome by any means, it's just a pathetic shadow of the powerful tool it used to be.
- 323 5y ago
  The main financial contributor to Mozilla is Google. So in a way, Firefox is run by Google. Some say it's convenient for Firefox to exist to avoid anti-trust lawsuits.
  - fartcannon 5y ago
    That's more or less what Microsoft did with Apple for I believe the same basic reason. They invested 150 million in 1997 to keep Apple afloat. Now Apple is worth 3 trillion. It can be turned around.
awild 5y ago
Have been an active Firefox user for 15+ years and not had much trouble, even running on preview builds.
gertlex 5y ago
For me, automatic highlight all on mouse selection in an add-on, which Chrome doesn't have, has been the biggest reason I've preferred Firefox for years now. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/highlightall/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/highlightall/

You know, there used to be good things about Firefox *other* than them not being run by Google or based on Chrome. That's been a while though.

the_duke 5y ago

On Linux + Wayland Firefox very notably has the best performance for me ( except certain very JS heavy/Chrome optimized sites)

asabla 5y ago

Kind of, their multi-account stuff is truly a game changer in my day to day workflows. I just wish handling profiles were a bit better

commoner 5y ago
Have you tried the Profile Switcher for Firefox add-on? It works just like the profile switcher on Chrome. - Add-on: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/profile-switcher/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/profile-switc... - Connector (required for add-on): https://github.com/null-dev/firefox-profile-switcher-connector https://github.com/null-dev/firefox-profile-switcher-connect... - Source: https://github.com/null-dev/firefox-profile-switcher https://github.com/null-dev/firefox-profile-switcher

wongarsu 5y ago

All browsers have gotten kind of sameish. I don't feel much difference between Edge, Chrome and Firefox (on Windows). A couple minor differences like Edge having native vertical tabs, where I have to go to a more powerful but less performant and less stable extension in Firefox, or Firefox having the sync feature I trust more. But overall it feels hard to find good reasons to use one browser over another. Firefox's multi-account containers are the only major feature I could name that makes a major difference.

2ion 5y ago
> multi-account containers are the only major feature I could name that makes a major difference. And for me, that's a key difference. Chrome, Chromium, Opera, Vivaldi, Brave, all garbage --- staying logged into several AWS SSM sessions in different accounts at the same time w/ full features, logged into several paypal accounts at once etc etc etc. The containers fix so much of web dumbness that they've become indespensable in my workflow, both at work and at home. Unless the other browsers have feature parity regarding MAC, they are not even among the competition.
BuckRogers 5y ago
I agree on containers being Firefox's only headline feature. To potentially add to your comparison list, Brave is the only other fully open-source browser other than Firefox. I'm an ex-FF user after 19 years of dedication, and now use Edge, but Brave is my close 2nd choice due to its focus on OSS transparency and privacy. And Brave is the only browser that's Chromium-based, fully open-source, and focuses on privacy. If these things interest someone at least.
MiddleEndian 5y ago
For me, Firefox has a lot of subtle niceties that I miss if I'm using Chrome to test something out. Firefox has much more efficient browsing keyboard shortcuts (although old Opera was comparably good), / allows you to jump to text where you're typing and you can use ' to search only texts of links, then you can just press return/enter to click links. Tab management is better. Custom CSS allows multiple rows of tabs at the top and allows you to hide the close tab X's entirely, so you can close tabs only with middle click or double click without having to target (or avoid) a tiny close button. Also keyboard shortcuts CTRL Shift PgUp/PgDn to rearrange tabs which doesn't seem to be present in Chrome. CTRL+Tab as an option to browse tabs in recently used order (leaving CTRL pgup/pgdn for left/right order). Also for whatever reason Chrome doesn't let you mute individual tabs, only muting entire sites, while Firefox lets you mute individual tabs. Extensions in general on Firefox are a bit more powerful, uBlock Origin on Firefox is a bit more effective at blocking ads than it is on Chrome. On Android Firefox supports uBlock Origin while Chrome has no extensions, but honestly I think every mobile browser is pretty shit (just Firefox slightly less so).

danShumway 5y ago

Firefox's anti-fingerprinting features are being pulled up directly from Tor, if you seriously want to resist fingerprinting in your normal browsing, you use Firefox. Additionally, Firefox has the best extension support of any browser. Ublock Origin works better in Firefox than it does in Chrome, today. Firefox containers also don't really have a good equivalent in other browsers; they are an incredibly useful tool for easy separation of site data -- and containers are exposed as an API that extensions can take advantage of. That kind of easy access to privacy controls matters because privacy controls have to be simple enough to use that people can actually use them day-to-day and not just once and a while when they're doing something sensitive. On the developer side of things, Firefox also outperforms Chrome in its CSS developer tools; I use Chrome for debugging Javascript, I usually prefer to debug CSS and prototype layout in Firefox. There are other advantages, Firefox and Chrome kind of go in different directions in what they prioritize for developers. But the extension support is the big one. Properly configured, Firefox will be more private than any other browser, including stuff like DeGoogled Chromium, because DeGoogled Chromium is still based on Chrome and is still missing the extension APIs that Ublock Origin uses in Firefox, it's still missing the anti-fingerprinting features from Tor. People can debate a lot of stuff (I like Firefox's resource usage but performance is subjective and user-dependent), and people get mad about Firefox defaults and decisions the company makes (sometimes legitimately, Firefox often makes bad decisions), but just as a private browser, Firefox is objectively more capable today than any other full-featured browser I've ever seen. I don't think that's just my opinion, Firefox objectively has more privacy features and better privacy APIs for extensions.

Nextgrid 5y ago
The problem with fingerprinting is that Firefox's market share is so low that using Firefox is a pretty unique fingerprint in an of itself.
- est31 5y ago
  A 1% browser (and Firefox is solidly above that) means approximately 6-7 bits of entropy. If Firefox's fingerprinting protection removes at least these many bits, then it's worth using Firefox.

cycomanic 5y ago

Not being run by google is already a _very_ good thing. That said in my experience Firefox is much faster than chrome both on Linux and Android, on top of that I find the extensions available for Firefox much better as well.

coldpie 5y ago
Having uBlock Origin and NoScript in a mobile browser is amazing.
- seanw444 5y ago
  Not just for getting rid of the annoyance, but uBlock Origin also makes the browser perform way better too. And it's especially noticeable on mobile.
- causality0 5y ago
  It was better having all the extensions in a mobile browser. Like a damn user agent switcher. Firefox is not worse than Chrome by any means, it's just a pathetic shadow of the powerful tool it used to be.
323 5y ago
The main financial contributor to Mozilla is Google. So in a way, Firefox is run by Google. Some say it's convenient for Firefox to exist to avoid anti-trust lawsuits.
- fartcannon 5y ago
  That's more or less what Microsoft did with Apple for I believe the same basic reason. They invested 150 million in 1997 to keep Apple afloat. Now Apple is worth 3 trillion. It can be turned around.

awild 5y ago

Have been an active Firefox user for 15+ years and not had much trouble, even running on preview builds.

gertlex 5y ago

For me, automatic highlight all on mouse selection in an add-on, which Chrome doesn't have, has been the biggest reason I've preferred Firefox for years now. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/highlightall/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/highlightall/