4 ms·

Waterfox isn't new, its first release was in 2011. I used to run it because they had an x86-64 build when Firefox didn't.

by lnx01 2y ago

meitham 2y ago
You're absolutely right but attribution is still the core issue here. I clicked on the page because it seemed like a promising alternative to Firefox, and I expected the focus to be on how it differs from Firefox. Instead, I was surprised to see Firefox completely ignored, especially when the project is clearly built on its foundation and even borrows part of its name. It feels like a missed opportunity to acknowledge the very platform that made Waterfox possible in the first place. Transparency and credit matter, especially in open-source projects.
- MrAlex94 2y ago
  You aren't wrong, at all, but as mentioned I have run into issues with this in the past. I don't have enough income for the rigmarole Mozilla would put us through, even though I attempted in the past. FWIW in regards to features: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43206110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43206110
  - meitham 2y ago
    Thanks for keeping Waterfox alive despite Mozilla's hurdles. The feature list is great, exactly what people need when looking for a Firefox alternative. Putting it on the homepage would help a lot. Appreciate your work!
  - penguin_booze 2y ago
    OOC, what's the nature of development? Is it the case that this browser is a set of patches you maintain on top of Firefox trunk, or do you have to do some surgery every time Firefox makes a release? Do you try to keep up with Firefox releases?
lolinder 2y ago
Is it a hard fork that's been maintained since 2011 without pulling? Or is it a soft fork that's still pulling from upstream regularly? If it's the former attribution still matters, but if it's the latter lack of attribution is outright dishonest.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  They aren't hiding the fact that they forked, so it's not dishonest. Nobody really expects a fork to never merge again from upstream. The point of it is increased privacy as opposed to improving the browser fundamentally anyway. I don't give a fuck if they do or don't say "we still merge from upstream btw" (and they did hard fork at some point, so I highly doubt they even try to keep up). This isn't a mere rebranding of Firefox to steal credit.

Waterfox isn't new, its first release was in 2011. I used to run it because they had an x86-64 build when Firefox didn't.

by lnx01 2y ago

Waterfox isn't new, its first release was in 2011. I used to run it because they had an x86-64 build when Firefox didn't.

meitham 2y ago

You're absolutely right but attribution is still the core issue here. I clicked on the page because it seemed like a promising alternative to Firefox, and I expected the focus to be on how it differs from Firefox. Instead, I was surprised to see Firefox completely ignored, especially when the project is clearly built on its foundation and even borrows part of its name. It feels like a missed opportunity to acknowledge the very platform that made Waterfox possible in the first place. Transparency and credit matter, especially in open-source projects.

MrAlex94 2y ago
You aren't wrong, at all, but as mentioned I have run into issues with this in the past. I don't have enough income for the rigmarole Mozilla would put us through, even though I attempted in the past. FWIW in regards to features: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43206110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43206110
- meitham 2y ago
  Thanks for keeping Waterfox alive despite Mozilla's hurdles. The feature list is great, exactly what people need when looking for a Firefox alternative. Putting it on the homepage would help a lot. Appreciate your work!
- penguin_booze 2y ago
  OOC, what's the nature of development? Is it the case that this browser is a set of patches you maintain on top of Firefox trunk, or do you have to do some surgery every time Firefox makes a release? Do you try to keep up with Firefox releases?

lolinder 2y ago

Is it a hard fork that's been maintained since 2011 without pulling? Or is it a soft fork that's still pulling from upstream regularly? If it's the former attribution still matters, but if it's the latter lack of attribution is outright dishonest.

wakawaka28 2y ago
They aren't hiding the fact that they forked, so it's not dishonest. Nobody really expects a fork to never merge again from upstream. The point of it is increased privacy as opposed to improving the browser fundamentally anyway. I don't give a fuck if they do or don't say "we still merge from upstream btw" (and they did hard fork at some point, so I highly doubt they even try to keep up). This isn't a mere rebranding of Firefox to steal credit.