6 ms·

I specifically want to use a browser released by a non-market leader because it encourages the web to be a more open standard.

encryptluks2 5y ago
Until you realize that Mozilla is doing the same telemetry. Just like politicians, I don't think it matters if you use Firefox or Chromium. They are two sides to the same coin.
- ofrzeta 5y ago
  They are not. Mozilla with all its flaws is still a foundation while Google is .. not. Even if they were two sides of the same coin I'd rather have a coin with two sides so I can flip it if I want.
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    Mozilla is a non-profit in the same sense that a church is a non-profit, while the preacher drives a Bentley. Maybe they should be investigated.
  - ThrashBeard 5y ago
    > Mozilla with all its flaws is still a foundation Not exactly. There is a Mozilla Foundation and a Mozilla Corporation
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    In my opinion a non-profit where workers are legally prevented (by contract) from talking about their pay and where CEO makes more money than other people should not be called a non-profit. A non-profit should have equal pay for everyone, from office cleaners to administrators.
    - after_care 5y ago
      There are a lot of organizations that do a lot of good in the world that do not meet that standard.
      - southerntofu 5y ago
        I'm personally not convinced that organizations not meeting that criteria can do do "good", as they are aligned with the "bad" status quo. Of course not everything is so binary, but most non-profits nowadays are indistinguishable from for-profits in what they produce and how they operate, and i think that's a problem. EDIT: To name an infamous example that's often cited here on HN: Mozilla. If it was operated like a non-profit, by people driven by vision not money, it would probably have saved the web from whatever Google has turned it into.
- brobinson 5y ago
  Consider using Librewolf. It's a set of patches for FF that remove all that crap.
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    Hopefully Librewolf can create some official packages for Arch Linux. In the meantime, Chromium with policies works well and is relatively safe minus a few APIs that send more data than I'd like (client hints).
- jfk13 5y ago
  It's disingenuous, to say the least, to equate Mozilla's telemetry with Google's data gathering to feed its advertising business. These things are vastly different.
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    Chromium is open source too. You can see what settings and telemetry are sent by default, and Mozilla sends just as much. In regards to Chromium using the data for advertising, I'm not sure there is much difference between Google using telemetry data for advertising vs Mozilla sending it to their partners.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > Chromium is open source too. You can see what settings and telemetry are sent by default Chromium is. But Chrome isn't.
    - cpeterso 5y ago
      Does Google document what telemetry data it collects? Mozilla is not sending telemetry data to partners or using telemetry data for advertising purposes. Here is Mozilla's documentation of the telemetry Firefox records: https://probes.telemetry.mozilla.org/ https://probes.telemetry.mozilla.org/
      - encryptluks2 5y ago
        Chromium is open source, but I manage configuration using policies which document the default values: https://chromeenterprise.google/policies/ https://chromeenterprise.google/policies/ It is surprisingly easy to disable telemetry in Chromium as well, and when configuring Firefox using a similar method they send just as much telemetry as Chromium by default.
- kaba0 5y ago
  Mozilla, if anything, does the equivalent of a security guard clicking away in the entrance of a shopping mall so that in case of a fire they know how many people are inside. Google on the other hand can connect your live location with your search queries, your photos, your email, your browser history, with all of your friends’ listed items. Let’s not goddamn compare the two as counting how many people use firefox is not at all intrusive to noone. They are simply not comparable.
edflsafoiewq 5y ago
I think its crazy to pick your browser based on these kind of hoped-for second order effects.
- fsflover 5y ago
  If it was not actually good, those effects would probably be less relevant.
- hnlmorg 5y ago
  It proved a successful strategy last time, when IE dominated.
  - 0xdeadb00f 5y ago
    Google's domination is incredibly worse, almost irreversible IMO.
    - hnlmorg 5y ago
      Is it though? IE had a larger market share and came preinstalled on most people’s computers. It was also closed source so you couldn’t even take Trident and write your own browser around it (best you could do was embed Trident as a COM object).
      - kibwen 5y ago
        Chromium being open source is a red herring here. The web is a protocol, with both clients and servers. If we accept that Google singlehandedly dominates the protocol in practice, then having control over the client is insufficient. If Google adds something to the protocol that you don't like, then it doesn't matter if you fork the browser, because servers will expect the addition and your fork will be incompatible with the web. On the other hand, if you want to add something to the protocol but Google doesn't want to add it, then it doesn't matter if you fork the browser to add it, because servers will not expect it and therefore no sites will use it, making the addition useless. TL;DR: it doesn't suffice to fork the client, you have to fork the entire web.

encryptluks2 5y ago

Until you realize that Mozilla is doing the same telemetry. Just like politicians, I don't think it matters if you use Firefox or Chromium. They are two sides to the same coin.

ofrzeta 5y ago
They are not. Mozilla with all its flaws is still a foundation while Google is .. not. Even if they were two sides of the same coin I'd rather have a coin with two sides so I can flip it if I want.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  Mozilla is a non-profit in the same sense that a church is a non-profit, while the preacher drives a Bentley. Maybe they should be investigated.
- ThrashBeard 5y ago
  > Mozilla with all its flaws is still a foundation Not exactly. There is a Mozilla Foundation and a Mozilla Corporation
- southerntofu 5y ago
  In my opinion a non-profit where workers are legally prevented (by contract) from talking about their pay and where CEO makes more money than other people should not be called a non-profit. A non-profit should have equal pay for everyone, from office cleaners to administrators.
  - after_care 5y ago
    There are a lot of organizations that do a lot of good in the world that do not meet that standard.
    - southerntofu 5y ago
      I'm personally not convinced that organizations not meeting that criteria can do do "good", as they are aligned with the "bad" status quo. Of course not everything is so binary, but most non-profits nowadays are indistinguishable from for-profits in what they produce and how they operate, and i think that's a problem. EDIT: To name an infamous example that's often cited here on HN: Mozilla. If it was operated like a non-profit, by people driven by vision not money, it would probably have saved the web from whatever Google has turned it into.
brobinson 5y ago
Consider using Librewolf. It's a set of patches for FF that remove all that crap.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  Hopefully Librewolf can create some official packages for Arch Linux. In the meantime, Chromium with policies works well and is relatively safe minus a few APIs that send more data than I'd like (client hints).
jfk13 5y ago
It's disingenuous, to say the least, to equate Mozilla's telemetry with Google's data gathering to feed its advertising business. These things are vastly different.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  Chromium is open source too. You can see what settings and telemetry are sent by default, and Mozilla sends just as much. In regards to Chromium using the data for advertising, I'm not sure there is much difference between Google using telemetry data for advertising vs Mozilla sending it to their partners.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > Chromium is open source too. You can see what settings and telemetry are sent by default Chromium is. But Chrome isn't.
  - cpeterso 5y ago
    Does Google document what telemetry data it collects? Mozilla is not sending telemetry data to partners or using telemetry data for advertising purposes. Here is Mozilla's documentation of the telemetry Firefox records: https://probes.telemetry.mozilla.org/ https://probes.telemetry.mozilla.org/
    - encryptluks2 5y ago
      Chromium is open source, but I manage configuration using policies which document the default values: https://chromeenterprise.google/policies/ https://chromeenterprise.google/policies/ It is surprisingly easy to disable telemetry in Chromium as well, and when configuring Firefox using a similar method they send just as much telemetry as Chromium by default.
kaba0 5y ago
Mozilla, if anything, does the equivalent of a security guard clicking away in the entrance of a shopping mall so that in case of a fire they know how many people are inside. Google on the other hand can connect your live location with your search queries, your photos, your email, your browser history, with all of your friends’ listed items. Let’s not goddamn compare the two as counting how many people use firefox is not at all intrusive to noone. They are simply not comparable.

edflsafoiewq 5y ago

I think its crazy to pick your browser based on these kind of hoped-for second order effects.

fsflover 5y ago
If it was not actually good, those effects would probably be less relevant.
hnlmorg 5y ago
It proved a successful strategy last time, when IE dominated.
- 0xdeadb00f 5y ago
  Google's domination is incredibly worse, almost irreversible IMO.
  - hnlmorg 5y ago
    Is it though? IE had a larger market share and came preinstalled on most people’s computers. It was also closed source so you couldn’t even take Trident and write your own browser around it (best you could do was embed Trident as a COM object).
    - kibwen 5y ago
      Chromium being open source is a red herring here. The web is a protocol, with both clients and servers. If we accept that Google singlehandedly dominates the protocol in practice, then having control over the client is insufficient. If Google adds something to the protocol that you don't like, then it doesn't matter if you fork the browser, because servers will expect the addition and your fork will be incompatible with the web. On the other hand, if you want to add something to the protocol but Google doesn't want to add it, then it doesn't matter if you fork the browser to add it, because servers will not expect it and therefore no sites will use it, making the addition useless. TL;DR: it doesn't suffice to fork the client, you have to fork the entire web.