7 ms·

I’m irrationally excited for this project. The idea of a community built browser is incredibly appealing considering the current landscape where all browsers ar

I’m irrationally excited for this project. The idea of a community built browser is incredibly appealing considering the current landscape where all browsers are either Chrome, Chrome in a trench coat, or Firefox

nutrie 2y ago
I don't understand what is wrong with Firefox. It is open-source, highly configurable and reasonably secure (if you have the time to configure). Yes, it has shortcomings, but what doesn't.
- manuelmoreale 2y ago
  Nothing, it’s my default browser for dev work but it’s only alive because Google keeps paying them to exist basically so I’d love an alternative.
  - Aachen 2y ago
    How's that alternative funded? Shouldn't Mozilla want to replace their Google payment with that instead? Or, failing that, wouldn't it be much lower budget to fork Firefox code instead? And then to do it in C++ when other browsers and kernels are flirting with things like Rust. How long will it take for people to trust this new C++ code? I applaud the effort but am worried it'll be in vain. Then again, with how many projects I start not because they make sense but because I enjoy them, perhaps I should see it more in that way
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Mozilla. I like and use Firefox but I find it increasingly hard to trust Mozilla and that makes me feel insecure about the future of Firefox.
- lukan 2y ago
  Not every open source software has spyware and ads activated by default, while marketing itself as privacy friendly. Yes, can all be deactivated, I also use FF, but I do not trust Mozilla anymore.
  - garbagewoman 2y ago
    Can you elaborate on what you mean by your claims of firefox having “spyware and ads activated by default”?
    - lukan 2y ago
      Install a new version of firefox, have a look in settings under "data" (or whatever they call it in english). There you will see "studies" as activated, which is cryptic talk for ad tracking. And more recently, literal tracking for a advertisement company. And as a bonus, those were added and activated as features via update, without telling. At least for me. (and paid ads you have on the home screen)
      - worksonmine 2y ago
        Studies are not ad tracking. It's worse and more like a backdoor for A/B testing of browser features. A few years back an update broke the Metamask extension and it was fixed by pushing via studies. At that point users weren't very aware the feature even existed and it caused some backlash since users realized there was a backdoor to push code into their browsers. The backlash resulted in studies being opt-in, and I thought it still was but I don't know, I use "policies.json" to setup my browsers.
        bongobingo1 2y ago
        Am I being a total chud? These don't really seem egregious? I already accept (and expect) that Firefox receives background updates in the background. https://i.imgur.com/S7d4ZXg.png https://i.imgur.com/S7d4ZXg.png https://i.imgur.com/n2euIrQ.png https://i.imgur.com/n2euIrQ.png https://i.imgur.com/BUjukOy.png https://i.imgur.com/BUjukOy.png
        worksonmine 2y ago
        I don't mind the feature as opt-in, just like telemetry it can be useful. But depending on the threat model it can be a big problem. I still use Firefox as my main browser.
- JimDabell 2y ago
  Even Mozilla doesn’t seem to care about Firefox; why should anybody else? The primary value in Firefox existing right now is that the web standards process becomes dysfunctional when there are only two major browser rendering engines, but that is fading away with Firefox’s market share. Hopefully Ladybird can gain enough momentum to matter there because it doesn’t seem like Gecko can maintain its relevance.
  - viraptor 2y ago
    We're in the current situation because Google could spend enough money on promoting Chrome. That's it. A different, or even better browser won't change that. Google can put a chrome ad everywhere again for a few months.
    - bmacho 2y ago
      I feel firefox market share is mostly because they actively enshittificate their browser, and not because of google ads, or chrome being better.
      - The_Colonel 2y ago
        Doubt it. Things tech people complain about (like integration of Pocket) are completely irrelevant to the masses. On the other hand, things like performance improved drastically, and it is now competitive with Chrome. Firefox the product is in the best shape it ever was.
      - bwat49 2y ago
        I disagree, IMO the main reason they lost so much marketshare to chrome was because for a long time, chrome just was much faster and much more stable. Performance, stability, and compatibility is all that matters to most users. Firefox (mostly) caught up with quantum and process isolation on the desktop, but by then I think it was too late. And the android version still has horrible performance, stability, and compatibility compared to Chromium browsers. Mozilla just doesn't have the same engineering resources to poor into the browser that google does, so I'm not sure there's any way they can really maintain pace with google outside of becoming yet another chromium browser.
- hippich 2y ago
  I think the problem is that chrome and firefox are developed for general usage, and as a result, have to deal with general usage constraints. For example, spectre and process isolation mentioned in another blog post here in the comments. I had a project in the past where I needed a browser with good JS support, but that does not make any http requests to any resources not in address bar or in the page rendered at that address. I did not find single browser based on firefox/chrome that fulfilled that requirement. Even the most privacy-focused projects still made continious requests to some mozilla resources (if i remember correctly, it was something about tls or maybe something else). So seeing someone creating an engine from scratch gives me hope that such browser might exist one day if I ever will need one again.
  - viraptor 2y ago
    There's a difference between privacy and stealth. Modern browsers need to do things like captive portal sensing, ocsp checks, etc. If you want to disable all requests, you'll need to spend time cutting legitimate features. Or run it in an external sandbox which removes all networking access?
- gwervc 2y ago
  Around Firefox 4 it became a shitshow of questionable UI redesign every version. And performances where not up to Chrome. Also Chromium is open-source, and Firefox is mainly funded by Google so it not like Firefox has a real proposition value or independence.
- safety1st 2y ago
  Well to put it bluntly, Firefox is Google's bitch. If we want the web to be a multi-vendor platform based on open, multi-vendor standards, as it has been for parts of its history, how much does Firefox really buy us? Do we really think that Firefox will take a hard stand against Google if their survival depends on not doing so? I use Firefox, but I think it's no longer true to its original mission in a lot of ways, Safari's global 18% share goes a lot farther toward making the web a duopolized rather than monopolized platform than Firefox's tiny sliver does. The less -opolized it is the better for society, or need I remind you that Google is presently mired in court for its conduct in its other web-adjacent monopolies such as web search and web advertising?
  - dralley 2y ago
    What are you talking about? Mozilla repeatedly stands up to Google on big ticket items. Flock being probably the biggest in recent history, but you can throw Manifest v2 on the pile as well and about half a dozen others.
    - SahAssar 2y ago
      > Flock For the benefit of those not in the know: FLoC https://wicg.github.io/floc/ https://wicg.github.io/floc/
    - safety1st 2y ago
      By coincidence, jwz just blogged on this https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/06/mozillas-original-sin/ https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/06/mozillas-original-sin/
- einpoklum 2y ago
  From my limited experience of Firefox-as-a-project, coming from the side of Thunderbird: * Firefox is effectively not a community project. It seems to be ruled with an iron fist by the commercial side of the operation. * Firefox broke its extensibility - which was the whole rationale of the Mozilla project to begin with. * Lots of telemetry and call-home mechanisms, so much so that it is difficult to opt out even if you want to - in Thunderbird, and I believe also in Firefox; see : https://superuser.com/q/1672309/122798 https://superuser.com/q/1672309/122798 (but correct me if I'm wrong and it's an app-specific thing).
- voytec 2y ago
  > I don't understand what is wrong with Firefox. It's developed by Mozilla, Google's controlled opposition. I submitted a link[0] on ads coming to Firefox but HN shadowed it almost immediately (present on /newest when logged in, nowhere to be found when logged out). [0] https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/06/mozilla-is-an-advertising-company-now/ https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/06/mozilla-is-an-advertising-c...
  - gjm11 2y ago
    That might be because Jamie Zawinski's website, which that link links to, does something ... special ... when it sees HN in the "Referer" field, so anyone actually following that link from here would (unless they take special measures) get IIRC a famous obscene image rather than the actual post you were hoping to link to. (JWZ is not a fan of Hacker News and its community.)
    - voytec 2y ago
      Ok, didn't knew that. Still a dick move on HN's part. Shadowing should be restricted to abusers.
      - Wowfunhappy 2y ago
        Wouldn't the submission get user flagged anyway? Because when people clicked it, they'd see something NSFW and devoid of interesting content.
        voytec 2y ago
        Flagged for what? In this case user - me - was unaware that submitted content gets replaced when requested with Referer header mentioning HN. There should be a 'you cannot post this' warning instead of hidden post creation. I only noticed shadowban by accident: switched to logged-in browser to submit and went back to logged-out for browsing.
        Wowfunhappy 2y ago
- squarefoot 2y ago
  Technically nothing; the problem lies entirely in the Mozilla Foundation which takes about $500B each year from Google. Officially the motivation is to keep Google as preferred search engine, but seriously the Firefox user base is so small that I don't even think Google would be interested for much less if there weren't strings attached that very likely create a huge conflict of interest if Mozilla become dependent on that money for their own survival. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-05-05/why-google-keeps-paying-mozilla-s-firefox-even-as-chrome-dominates https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-05-05/why-go...
  - beardyw 2y ago
    > $500B I think you may have made a typo. Possibly $500M?
    - squarefoot 2y ago
      Whoops, apologies, you're right. I completely missed it and now it's too late to correct.
  - hollowturtle 2y ago
    *million not billion
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
tambourine_man 2y ago
Not irrational at all. It’s the first new engine in decades, started by a single person in the open with no multibillion dollar company behind. We have every right to be exited.
the_other 2y ago
Safari is 18% of global web traffic, 7x that of Firefox. (from a hasty scan of caniuse.com)
- t00ny 2y ago
  How much of this is attributable to the iOS lock-in though?
  - the_other 2y ago
    Who cares? Why are you arguing in favour of monopoly?
- 8organicbits 2y ago
  I challenge those numbers. Global stats aren't important, just the stats for your target audience. My sites see 13% Firefox, 35% Safari. But keep in mind, FF users sometimes spoof the Chrome user agent because some sites break otherwise. Further, I suspect FF users have tracking blockers at a higher rate, so they don't show up. https://indieweb.social/@robalex/112472853515037460 https://indieweb.social/@robalex/112472853515037460
  - AlOwain 2y ago
    Could it be that the technical nature of your website creates a biased sample? I'd estimate that the difference between Firefox and Chrome users in spoofing their user-agent and blocking trackers is far less than the bias created by sampling HN for example.
    - 8organicbits 2y ago
      Absolutely, but since that's my target audience, that's the number I personally look at. Statements like "no one uses FF" don't apply. How skewed each target audience is from the global average is meaningful.
  - the_other 2y ago
    > just the stats for your target audience. My sites see 13% Firefox, 35% Safari. So your stats back up my point that Safari is a popular browser. The post I was challenging completely ignored the existence of Safari and your post backs up mine. Thanks.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
shrimp_emoji 2y ago
What about surf? https://surf.suckless.org/ https://surf.suckless.org/
- manuelmoreale 2y ago
  Isn’t this based on WebKit so it’s not really a new browser?
  - niutech 2y ago
    Yes, it's based on WebKit.
niutech 2y ago
Why is WebKit, the second most popular web engine worldwide, a "Chrome in a trench coat"? Actually WebKit is the Blink's older brother, whose father was KHTML.

nutrie 2y ago

I don't understand what is wrong with Firefox. It is open-source, highly configurable and reasonably secure (if you have the time to configure). Yes, it has shortcomings, but what doesn't.

manuelmoreale 2y ago
Nothing, it’s my default browser for dev work but it’s only alive because Google keeps paying them to exist basically so I’d love an alternative.
- Aachen 2y ago
  How's that alternative funded? Shouldn't Mozilla want to replace their Google payment with that instead? Or, failing that, wouldn't it be much lower budget to fork Firefox code instead? And then to do it in C++ when other browsers and kernels are flirting with things like Rust. How long will it take for people to trust this new C++ code? I applaud the effort but am worried it'll be in vain. Then again, with how many projects I start not because they make sense but because I enjoy them, perhaps I should see it more in that way
lupusreal 2y ago
Mozilla. I like and use Firefox but I find it increasingly hard to trust Mozilla and that makes me feel insecure about the future of Firefox.
lukan 2y ago
Not every open source software has spyware and ads activated by default, while marketing itself as privacy friendly. Yes, can all be deactivated, I also use FF, but I do not trust Mozilla anymore.
- garbagewoman 2y ago
  Can you elaborate on what you mean by your claims of firefox having “spyware and ads activated by default”?
  - lukan 2y ago
    Install a new version of firefox, have a look in settings under "data" (or whatever they call it in english). There you will see "studies" as activated, which is cryptic talk for ad tracking. And more recently, literal tracking for a advertisement company. And as a bonus, those were added and activated as features via update, without telling. At least for me. (and paid ads you have on the home screen)
    - worksonmine 2y ago
      Studies are not ad tracking. It's worse and more like a backdoor for A/B testing of browser features. A few years back an update broke the Metamask extension and it was fixed by pushing via studies. At that point users weren't very aware the feature even existed and it caused some backlash since users realized there was a backdoor to push code into their browsers. The backlash resulted in studies being opt-in, and I thought it still was but I don't know, I use "policies.json" to setup my browsers.
      - bongobingo1 2y ago
        Am I being a total chud? These don't really seem egregious? I already accept (and expect) that Firefox receives background updates in the background. https://i.imgur.com/S7d4ZXg.png https://i.imgur.com/S7d4ZXg.png https://i.imgur.com/n2euIrQ.png https://i.imgur.com/n2euIrQ.png https://i.imgur.com/BUjukOy.png https://i.imgur.com/BUjukOy.png
        worksonmine 2y ago
        I don't mind the feature as opt-in, just like telemetry it can be useful. But depending on the threat model it can be a big problem. I still use Firefox as my main browser.
JimDabell 2y ago
Even Mozilla doesn’t seem to care about Firefox; why should anybody else? The primary value in Firefox existing right now is that the web standards process becomes dysfunctional when there are only two major browser rendering engines, but that is fading away with Firefox’s market share. Hopefully Ladybird can gain enough momentum to matter there because it doesn’t seem like Gecko can maintain its relevance.
- viraptor 2y ago
  We're in the current situation because Google could spend enough money on promoting Chrome. That's it. A different, or even better browser won't change that. Google can put a chrome ad everywhere again for a few months.
  - bmacho 2y ago
    I feel firefox market share is mostly because they actively enshittificate their browser, and not because of google ads, or chrome being better.
    - The_Colonel 2y ago
      Doubt it. Things tech people complain about (like integration of Pocket) are completely irrelevant to the masses. On the other hand, things like performance improved drastically, and it is now competitive with Chrome. Firefox the product is in the best shape it ever was.
    - bwat49 2y ago
      I disagree, IMO the main reason they lost so much marketshare to chrome was because for a long time, chrome just was much faster and much more stable. Performance, stability, and compatibility is all that matters to most users. Firefox (mostly) caught up with quantum and process isolation on the desktop, but by then I think it was too late. And the android version still has horrible performance, stability, and compatibility compared to Chromium browsers. Mozilla just doesn't have the same engineering resources to poor into the browser that google does, so I'm not sure there's any way they can really maintain pace with google outside of becoming yet another chromium browser.
hippich 2y ago
I think the problem is that chrome and firefox are developed for general usage, and as a result, have to deal with general usage constraints. For example, spectre and process isolation mentioned in another blog post here in the comments. I had a project in the past where I needed a browser with good JS support, but that does not make any http requests to any resources not in address bar or in the page rendered at that address. I did not find single browser based on firefox/chrome that fulfilled that requirement. Even the most privacy-focused projects still made continious requests to some mozilla resources (if i remember correctly, it was something about tls or maybe something else). So seeing someone creating an engine from scratch gives me hope that such browser might exist one day if I ever will need one again.
- viraptor 2y ago
  There's a difference between privacy and stealth. Modern browsers need to do things like captive portal sensing, ocsp checks, etc. If you want to disable all requests, you'll need to spend time cutting legitimate features. Or run it in an external sandbox which removes all networking access?
gwervc 2y ago
Around Firefox 4 it became a shitshow of questionable UI redesign every version. And performances where not up to Chrome. Also Chromium is open-source, and Firefox is mainly funded by Google so it not like Firefox has a real proposition value or independence.
safety1st 2y ago
Well to put it bluntly, Firefox is Google's bitch. If we want the web to be a multi-vendor platform based on open, multi-vendor standards, as it has been for parts of its history, how much does Firefox really buy us? Do we really think that Firefox will take a hard stand against Google if their survival depends on not doing so? I use Firefox, but I think it's no longer true to its original mission in a lot of ways, Safari's global 18% share goes a lot farther toward making the web a duopolized rather than monopolized platform than Firefox's tiny sliver does. The less -opolized it is the better for society, or need I remind you that Google is presently mired in court for its conduct in its other web-adjacent monopolies such as web search and web advertising?
- dralley 2y ago
  What are you talking about? Mozilla repeatedly stands up to Google on big ticket items. Flock being probably the biggest in recent history, but you can throw Manifest v2 on the pile as well and about half a dozen others.
  - SahAssar 2y ago
    > Flock For the benefit of those not in the know: FLoC https://wicg.github.io/floc/ https://wicg.github.io/floc/
  - safety1st 2y ago
    By coincidence, jwz just blogged on this https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/06/mozillas-original-sin/ https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/06/mozillas-original-sin/
einpoklum 2y ago
From my limited experience of Firefox-as-a-project, coming from the side of Thunderbird: * Firefox is effectively not a community project. It seems to be ruled with an iron fist by the commercial side of the operation. * Firefox broke its extensibility - which was the whole rationale of the Mozilla project to begin with. * Lots of telemetry and call-home mechanisms, so much so that it is difficult to opt out even if you want to - in Thunderbird, and I believe also in Firefox; see : https://superuser.com/q/1672309/122798 https://superuser.com/q/1672309/122798 (but correct me if I'm wrong and it's an app-specific thing).
voytec 2y ago
> I don't understand what is wrong with Firefox. It's developed by Mozilla, Google's controlled opposition. I submitted a link[0] on ads coming to Firefox but HN shadowed it almost immediately (present on /newest when logged in, nowhere to be found when logged out). [0] https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/06/mozilla-is-an-advertising-company-now/ https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/06/mozilla-is-an-advertising-c...
- gjm11 2y ago
  That might be because Jamie Zawinski's website, which that link links to, does something ... special ... when it sees HN in the "Referer" field, so anyone actually following that link from here would (unless they take special measures) get IIRC a famous obscene image rather than the actual post you were hoping to link to. (JWZ is not a fan of Hacker News and its community.)
  - voytec 2y ago
    Ok, didn't knew that. Still a dick move on HN's part. Shadowing should be restricted to abusers.
    - Wowfunhappy 2y ago
      Wouldn't the submission get user flagged anyway? Because when people clicked it, they'd see something NSFW and devoid of interesting content.
      - voytec 2y ago
        Flagged for what? In this case user - me - was unaware that submitted content gets replaced when requested with Referer header mentioning HN. There should be a 'you cannot post this' warning instead of hidden post creation. I only noticed shadowban by accident: switched to logged-in browser to submit and went back to logged-out for browsing.
        Wowfunhappy 2y ago
squarefoot 2y ago
Technically nothing; the problem lies entirely in the Mozilla Foundation which takes about $500B each year from Google. Officially the motivation is to keep Google as preferred search engine, but seriously the Firefox user base is so small that I don't even think Google would be interested for much less if there weren't strings attached that very likely create a huge conflict of interest if Mozilla become dependent on that money for their own survival. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-05-05/why-google-keeps-paying-mozilla-s-firefox-even-as-chrome-dominates https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-05-05/why-go...
- beardyw 2y ago
  > $500B I think you may have made a typo. Possibly $500M?
  - squarefoot 2y ago
    Whoops, apologies, you're right. I completely missed it and now it's too late to correct.
- hollowturtle 2y ago
  *million not billion
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

tambourine_man 2y ago

Not irrational at all. It’s the first new engine in decades, started by a single person in the open with no multibillion dollar company behind. We have every right to be exited.

the_other 2y ago

Safari is 18% of global web traffic, 7x that of Firefox. (from a hasty scan of caniuse.com)

t00ny 2y ago
How much of this is attributable to the iOS lock-in though?
- the_other 2y ago
  Who cares? Why are you arguing in favour of monopoly?
8organicbits 2y ago
I challenge those numbers. Global stats aren't important, just the stats for your target audience. My sites see 13% Firefox, 35% Safari. But keep in mind, FF users sometimes spoof the Chrome user agent because some sites break otherwise. Further, I suspect FF users have tracking blockers at a higher rate, so they don't show up. https://indieweb.social/@robalex/112472853515037460 https://indieweb.social/@robalex/112472853515037460
- AlOwain 2y ago
  Could it be that the technical nature of your website creates a biased sample? I'd estimate that the difference between Firefox and Chrome users in spoofing their user-agent and blocking trackers is far less than the bias created by sampling HN for example.
  - 8organicbits 2y ago
    Absolutely, but since that's my target audience, that's the number I personally look at. Statements like "no one uses FF" don't apply. How skewed each target audience is from the global average is meaningful.
- the_other 2y ago
  > just the stats for your target audience. My sites see 13% Firefox, 35% Safari. So your stats back up my point that Safari is a popular browser. The post I was challenging completely ignored the existence of Safari and your post backs up mine. Thanks.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

shrimp_emoji 2y ago

What about surf? https://surf.suckless.org/ https://surf.suckless.org/

manuelmoreale 2y ago
Isn’t this based on WebKit so it’s not really a new browser?
- niutech 2y ago
  Yes, it's based on WebKit.

niutech 2y ago

Why is WebKit, the second most popular web engine worldwide, a "Chrome in a trench coat"? Actually WebKit is the Blink's older brother, whose father was KHTML.