8 ms·

Trust in Firefox and Mozilla Is Gone – Let's Talk Alternatives

280 points by ekianjo 2y ago

HackerThemAll 2y ago
[flagged]
- devnullbrain 2y ago
  The majority of suggestions in TFA do not use Chromium.
  - hedora 2y ago
    The majority use Firefox, contrary to the title. All but two use Chromium or Firefox. One is hoping to release something usable next year. The other one is Gnome Web.
layer8 2y ago
I’ll repeat my comment from yesterday on another Firefox thread: In terms of open source there are really only Chromium- and Firefox-derived browsers (I’m disregarding projects like the still pre-alpha Ladybird here). With Chromium browsers, you’re still subject to Google’s whims in the long term, such as removal of V3 extension support. (I.e. a conceivable fork with V3 compatibility will inevitably become too difficult to keep up to date with the mainline.) If Mozilla dies, Firefox and derivatives will in all likelihood wither away as well. IMO there is no alternative to supporting Mozilla, and also keeping them accountable and criticizing them where criticism is due. They are still roughly the good guys, even if sometimes misguided. The topic of Firefox and ads is nothing new: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28783381 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28783381 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36351322 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36351322 https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/improving-online-advertising/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/improving-online-adverti... One alternative recommended by the present article, Brave, is dabbling in ads as well: https://brave.com/brave-ads/ https://brave.com/brave-ads/
- drpossum 2y ago
  > Firefox and derivatives will in all likelihood wither away as well No, they won't. The community will pick them up and maintain them sensibly because there will be a need. The best thing that could happen to Firefox would be Mozilla dying. If you disagree, you can look at decades of Linux being successful despite endless bellowing about how it couldn't survive until it did. It did because it fit a sorely needed open source operating system niche. BSD failed to meet that exactly because it was controlled at the time by selfish garbage organizations.
  - layer8 2y ago
    Linux is majorly being developed and maintained by paid company employees. What interest would companies have in maintaining Firefox? They don’t seem to be very interested in contributing to Firefox development today. Another data point is that Microsoft gave up on their original Edge browser engine because using Chromium was ultimately easier than chasing Chrome compatibility. Who will defend Firefox’s interests in WHATWG? In the best case, it would result in something akin to today’s Mozilla Foundation.
    - gsich 2y ago
      CA/Browser Forum or ISRG.
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      A “maintenance and security only” trajectory for Firefox would be most interesting to me. Microsoft couldn’t keep up with Chrome, but that’s because they are a company that needs to be seen doing flashy things. Firefox developed by the community could reject frivolous new features and move a lot slower than Chrome. The web is heading in a shitty direction anyway, so moving slower is better.
      - layer8 2y ago
        There are Firefox derivatives, listed in the article, whose goals are roughly that. But I don’t think they can be successful long-term, meaning other than for a 0.1% niche, if they don’t keep up with web standards. And currently Mozilla is doing the heavy lifting for that.
econ 2y ago
Besides crypto mining there seem to be no new ideas that made it onto this page. Brave couldn't find time to maintain IPFS the rest of the browsers are stuck in a kind of "no one owns a fax machine" vision. TOR also seems fun out of the box. Are there other newer things in the works or that would look good on a browser?
- hedora 2y ago
  I miss bbs’s, gopher and nntp. I’m serious: They were much more user-respecting than the web.
  - econ 2y ago
    It's strange isn't it? In other areas there are so many projects no one can keep up. Now that html has grown into an application platform I would like to see some new document types. Say, turn readability into its own document type. Headings, text images and video. Give it a sticky hamburger menu with links in it. A spec for how the user should be able to style the doc. A protocol to check for new versions. Then freeze it forever. Similarly there could be standard forms the way the paper world has them. Or something else that bags a bunch of obvious permissions into one easy to use thing.
cphoover 2y ago
Isn’t that patch just converting inline strings to localized/internationalized strings?
- wtallis 2y ago
  No, it's not changing anything from an internationalization perspective. It's introducing a change to the content, gated by a 'firefox-tou' feature flag, and tagging the old text with an expiration date of 25-04-2025. The effect is that bits like "and we don’t sell your personal data" will be going away.
darthrupert 2y ago
Right now: Librewolf. Perhaps later: Ladybird.
javajosh 2y ago
There are two big error modes that we need to look out for when reacting in anger. First is to not jump from the frying pan into the fire by adopting a browser that makes nice sounding claims but really has no way to back them up. Installing a blob from a random website is never a good idea, especially when it's a browser. Personally, I think Librewolf is worth the risk but time may proved me wrong. The second error is a bit more subtle in that we need to think more deeply about how to fund browser development such that protects user interest. Clearly there are very powerful and pervasive market forces that Will attempt to warp any browser project into selling user data. That's true for all ubiquitous platform software, but the browser is particularly vulnerable because it exists at a high level of abstraction and therefore high level of utility. So I will make a prediction that the next successful privacy focused browser is going to be something like Cursor, a fork of a well-known browser engine with built-in local AI in service of the user only. This project will have to be a loss leader for another money making entity that requires a truly secure and private platform.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  One of the browsers listed in GNU IceCat. They are one of the few organizations that can probably be trusted not to join the ad blob. So, that could be an interesting option.
  - SkiFire13 2y ago
    GNU IceCat is still based on Firefox. Sure, it may remove tracking and some other sketchy stuff, but ultimately it's not a replacement for Firefox because if Firefox dies then GNU IceCat does as well.
TZubiri 2y ago
Remind me, what was wrong with chromium?
- gkbrk 2y ago
  Built and controlled by the largest ad company in the world, and recently removed crucial ad blocking APIs?
  - hedora 2y ago
    Also, oh my god, the enshittifcation! I had to install it for some work thing, and booting a clean copy reminds me of a peak pre-loaded-software windows box. All they need to add to reach full feature parity is a Candy Crush captcha that gates the “login to enhance google tracking” and “switch search engines” dialogs. I honestly don’t understand how people put up with the boiled frog crap from Google. The last time I ran a test query, the ads pushed 100% of the search results off the front page.
    - arccy 2y ago
      that sounds like you installed edge not chrome...
  - TZubiri 2y ago
    so you want software you don't pay for but you also don't want ads in your gratis software. and I imagine also that you are a software dev and you want to get paid for your efforts yourself. Got it.
    - Novosell 2y ago
      You don't know if they would be willing to pay or not. I'd be willing to pay for a browser which truly had its users best in mind. As far as I know, no such browser exists.
      - TZubiri 2y ago
thomassmith65 2y ago
'Ladybird' browser has so much buzz this year, and seems close to a proper release. This is the best week ever for the SerenityOS guy. He must be over the moon.
- moooo99 2y ago
  The Ladybird project is targeting an alpha release in 2026. they do make a lot of progress, but they are nowehere near a „proper release“.
  - thomassmith65 2y ago
    My wording was poor. What I meant was: a release that doesn't require building from source. Also 'close' may have come across like 'days away' which is not what I meant.
  - jpc0 2y ago
    Last I heard they are targeting an alpha this year all things going well. > https://youtu.be/xuf1mcYuCaI?si=-RGFmUkrNLTz-7GR https://youtu.be/xuf1mcYuCaI?si=-RGFmUkrNLTz-7GR
Steven420 2y ago
Why isn't everyone calling for the board of Mozilla to step down? They haven't had the best interests of there users in mind for a long time.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > They haven't had the best interests of there users in mind for a long time Mozilla are a non-profit. They don’t work for their users. I’m honestly convinced a non-profit open-source model isn’t a good fit for browser development. Kagi’s Orion [1] has the right idea. If the users pay you’re accountable to them. [1] https://kagi.com/orion/ https://kagi.com/orion/
  - AstralStorm 2y ago
    Really? How many requested features have they implemented? Do you vote with the amount of money you pay to them?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > How many requested features have they implemented? One! And I haven’t even started paying for Orion directly! (I pay healthily for their search product.)
  - protimewaster 2y ago
    > If the users pay you’re accountable to them. Except, apparently, the paying users that don't use Apple hardware.
    - Etheryte 2y ago
      Development costs money. This is outlined in their FAQ [0]: > Are there plans for a Windows/Linux/Android version of Orion? > We currently do not have the resources to hire a new team to do any of these platforms yet. Since Orion is funded by its users only, it is entirely up to the number of subscribers and Orion+ sales we have that will enable funding a new team to make Orion for any new platform. [0] https://help.kagi.com/orion/faq/faq.html#other_os_support https://help.kagi.com/orion/faq/faq.html#other_os_support
tambre 2y ago
Side note: the site has an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address as its AAAA record. Surprisingly this actually works. Unfortunately there's no way to contact them over email to let them know that it's wrong/useless.
ElectronBadger 2y ago
I've already switched to Vivaldi some time ago, no regrets. https://vivaldi.com/desktop/ https://vivaldi.com/desktop/ https://vivaldi.com/for-a-better-web/ https://vivaldi.com/for-a-better-web/ https://vivaldi.com/we-respect-your-privacy/ https://vivaldi.com/we-respect-your-privacy/
- SkiFire13 2y ago
  Vivaldi is still chromium based.
  - voidee 2y ago
    Yes, but one of the best alternatives until Ladybird is ready. Librewolf, Vivaldi, Orion (iOS and macOS only) are all solid options.
    - SkiFire13 2y ago
      To me something Chromium based is just not a good alternative, since you'll still play in Google's hands. Librewolf is based on Firefox. If Firefox dies then Librewolf is done as well. Orion is Webkit-based, which is not too bad, but as you said it's ios and macOS only.
- isodev 2y ago
  Agreed, this should've been the Chromium mention instead of Brave (crypto, ads, that CEO...)
  - ciupicri 2y ago
    What's wrong with Brave's CEO?
    - kbelder 2y ago
      They're mad he sided with the majority of the state on ballot measure 8 seventeen years ago.
the__alchemist 2y ago
This is rough: There are many types of popular software that aren't that big of a deal to re-implement. You could look at examples of popular software and think "This blows, I'll re-invent it". With care, dedication, and careful management, you could do it. This doesn't mean people will switch from the popular established software, but you could do it. Web browsers are not one of these. Way too complicated, largely due to the complicated and changing DOM and JS specs.
- augustk 2y ago
  I think it would be a good idea to define a subset of the current web technologies and make all important sites like banks, tax office etc. to adhere to this standard basic functionality. It also needs a logo which can be used on these sites.
  - kuhaku22 2y ago
    We used to have such a thing: it was called HTML. Sites were supposed to have their content in the HTML, and if JS wasn't enabled, you'd still get the semantic hypertext. A vast majority of web pages are text and images, and don't actually require fancy CSS/JS. But the ship of progressive enhancement has long sailed,[0] and tons of static sites have JS, and all the hundreds of APIs that entails, baked into their functionality. Hell, there are many sites nowadays that will use JS to stream the HTML to your device for some reason. [0]: JQuery/AJAX were probably the beginning of the end. But even without those, you had developers doing things like putting main images in CSS using the background property, overloading text with icon fonts, loading videos using "blob:" crap, or other abuse of semantics. Once it became possible to push more state to the browser instead of the server, the floodgates opened. I remember in the dial-up days, you could take a browser offline, and webpages would function perfectly, yet now, even hitting the back button can be a gamble. Now, hitting File > Save fails 95% of the time for me.
    - augustk 2y ago
      I wholeheartedly agree. When was progressive enhancement thrown out the window? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_enhancement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_enhancement
lxgr 2y ago
Ah yes, the long-term viable strategy of replacing Firefox with a Firefox fork, that will somehow still receive upstream updates from... somewhere.
- swed420 2y ago
  Doesn't need to be long-term viable. Forks like LibreWolf are sufficient to fill the gap until true alternatives like Ladybird are ready.
- bmacho 2y ago
  What about - upstream firefox - volunteers - paid developers
  - beej71 2y ago
    I'd pay $100 per year to support Firefox, no problem. Most people probably wouldn't be willing to go more than $20. But I do wonder how many of us there are who would pay, and what kind of dev team that would support.
throwaway81523 2y ago
The problem is the complexity of the web itself, and that complexity was to some extent created and amplified by Firefox. IDK if there is any escape other than to treat the existing web as a modern day AOL that sensible users ignore in favor of a clean niche alternative. Sort of like GNU/Linux users in the ocean of Windows.
dmos62 2y ago
I wonder if I'm in the minority in not caring about Firefox's privacy subtleties, as long as I get good extension support. I just want a different browser vendor than my ad and video vendor (Google).
- solardev 2y ago
  I don't even want that. I just want Chrome with adblock :( If Google would just let me pay for Chrome and Search without ads, the way YouTube does, I'd happily pay for both. They can still have my data as long as they don't show me ads.
  - tim333 2y ago
    Chrome with adblock still seems a thing? It's what I'm typing this on and apparently ublock lite works fine with v3.
degrees57 2y ago
I'd like to ask if there is a bookmark sync function and plugin sync function in any of these alternatives. It does seem to me that Mozilla corporation management has become corrupted, and will only get worse; so I'd like to move off Mozilla Firefox and onto something else. But I really like that when I wipe a machine and install a new OS, first I install the Bitwarden plugin, then that lets me log in to the Mozilla account, and then that syncs down all my plugins and bookmarks into Firefox. I really like my Temporary Containers plugin in Firefox, for example, in addition to uBlock Origin. But all of them, really: the GNU Terry Pratchet plugin is fun. The Mozilla Firefox solution does also work both on Linux and Windows. If there is some other form of sync for plugins and bookmarks, then I'd leap at Librewolf or Waterfox or Icecat. But I am unaware of a sync solution that would work. Anyone have something they like? I can self-host if that is an option.
- homebrewer 2y ago
  Brave has sync which does not rely on a centralized server — it's peer to peer between your machines only. I encourage you to do your own research on it because the hivemind's opinion was solidified long ago and results in repeating lots of nonsense that has little connection to reality. (I don't use it except for web development, but I also despise FUD.)
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > the hivemind's opinion was solidified long ago I have vetoed it at several organisations on the basis of its crypto tie in. Has that changed?
  - degrees57 2y ago
    Thank you; I didn't know that Brave has a peer-to-peer sync.
  - weikju 2y ago
    > Brave has sync which does not rely on a centralized server Didn't they change that to some more centralized solution in the past couple of years, citing difficulties with peer-to-peer syncing? > Sync v1 was a completely custom sync system, built as part of the old “Muon” browser. Sync v1 stored all data into an encrypted log on S3. New browsers joining the sync chain had to download all the logs and re-assemble the events in order. The browsers were also responsible for cleaning up out of date data records. > Sync v2 was rebuilt to be more directly compatible with the Chromium sync system (Chromium is the same open source base of Google’s Chrome and Brave). Brave built a sync server that more directly followed Chromium’s sync protocol, but defaulting instead to use encrypted data records. Sync v2 more easily supports more sync data types, while still keeping the client side data encrypted, so only you can see your data. https://support.brave.com/hc/en-us/articles/360047642371-Sync-FAQ https://support.brave.com/hc/en-us/articles/360047642371-Syn...
42772827 2y ago
The only chance of an another browser engine being successful at this point is if a nation state funds it
haswell 2y ago
If you’re looking for alternate browsers, at least consider a Firefox fork (LibreWolf, Floorp, etc.) Moving to a Chromium derivative seems completely counterproductive in the big picture and feeds the Chrome beast. While I am no fan of Mozilla’s moves here, I think people are transferring their anger and distrust at the worst offenders in the market to Mozilla, and I worry that the end result will be much worse if we just abandon Mozilla.
jillesvangurp 2y ago
A bunch of Firefox and Chromium derivatives are not a long term solution. The good news is that both Chromium and Firefox are open source. The bad news is that Google is funding these (and Safari too) via advertisement revenue. So, Google holds a lot of power here. And absolute power corrupts absolutely. The core of the issue is that Google pays directly or indirectly for the salaries of most of those working on Chrome/Chromium, Firefox, and Safari. Their money is funding the whole thing. Alternatives like Ladybird that lack this funding and commercial backing don't stand much of a chance to catch up technically. Unless they nail a sustainable funding model that isn't Google bribing them into submission. Both Chromium and Firefox are fixable and there's plenty left to salvage. Firefox has loads of regular contributors. Mozilla employs many of them of course but not all. Aside from the drama at Mozilla, it's a pretty well run and healthy open source project. Same with Chromium probably. Though most developers are likely Google employed currently. The solution isn't moving the problem to some new project but actually addressing the core issue. Which would be funding them properly.
- solardev 2y ago
  Google funds Safari too? Edit: Yeah, about $20 billion to be the default search: https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/26/23933206/google-apple-search-deal-safari-18-billion https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/26/23933206/google-apple-se...
  - jillesvangurp 2y ago
    Glad you clarified that. 20 billion is not nothing. Even for Apple.
  - seventh12 2y ago
    Well that is likely to end soon I would wager :)
- ciupicri 2y ago
  Will Mozilla use the money to improve the browser (engine) or will it use it for left politics stuff (and big salaries for executives)?
corny 2y ago
There's no mention yet of Kagi's Orion browser. What are people's thoughts on that?
- 01100011 2y ago
  Looks like it is Mac/iOS only.
- AstralStorm 2y ago
  It's WebKit. The number of browser UIs is less relevant than the engines.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
binary132 2y ago
Free computing can’t really exist in an ecosystem where only multimillion dollar projects can survive and be adequately secure. We need to drastically reduce the complexity of computing if we want it on our terms and without total dependency on megacorporations and capital. Expecting the state to fund it is also unrealistic.
bergie 2y ago
I've deleted all Mozilla software on my devices. Used to run Firefox everywhere. For now trying to live with the mixture of Safari (iOS, MacOS) and the DDG browser (Android). No replacement for Pocket so far, but also not sure if I really need one.
- AstralStorm 2y ago
  Hate to break it to you, but DDG browser is either WebView, WebView2 or WebKit dependent on the platform. Note how two of those are still Chromium.
  - transpaniel 2y ago
    They do add a lot of extra privacy protections, which includes disabling some of the engine functionality. And btw many of the bad Google stuff is in chrome, but not in chromium. So having chromium is not necessarily that bad by itself. Brave is also chromium under the hood.
- dartharva 2y ago
  > No replacement for Pocket so far, but also not sure if I really need one. I just use a single-member (self) Whatsapp group.
  - bergie 2y ago
    You're suggesting to give the content to Facebook instead of Mozilla?
    - dartharva 2y ago
      WhatsApp chats are E2E-encrypted.
- anotherevan 2y ago
  Instapaper[1] and Wallabag[2] would be the two main alternatives to Pocket, I think. Wallabag is self-hosting although I believe there are hosted services around as well. Cannot get either of them to integrate with my Kobo ereader like Pocket does, though. :-( [1] https://www.instapaper.com/ https://www.instapaper.com/ [2] https://wallabag.org/ https://wallabag.org/
motohagiography 2y ago
why do we still need general purpose browsers anyway. a custom X client, an HN client, an OpenAI client are likely sufficient for most purposes. mainstream news sites are landfills of terrible banner ad tech. Once we can use AI for efficient scraping into e-paper interfaces, the smart people will migrate to a quieter luxury experience, probably something more modular than a browser.
- qwerpy 2y ago
  Not every organization can make decent clients/apps. And those that can will embed unblockable ads and dark patterns into them. For example Amazon.com is usable with an adblocker but the Amazon app is a horrific mess of ads. Facebook.com can be made barely usable using a dedicated browser extension but their app is similarly 95% ads and “suggested content” and 5% actual content from your friends.
- AstralStorm 2y ago
  They are not. Most of the apps embed a browser. HN client would use what, RSS? HN does not have an API to get at the posts now? X is dead and buried. Pipewire is almost ready instead for the purpose, but the UI needs to be made. And remote input handling. OpenAI is a proprietary system, it can crash and burn at you at any time. Go run Sonnet or Claude or something.
- hnthrowaway4633 2y ago
  GPT-4.5 hallucinates over 1/3 of its answers in benchmarks, so I don't think an OpenAI client will be able to replace browsers for knowledge acquisition anytime soon.
- freehorse 2y ago
  And then wait until the AI starts serving you ads, in which case you will be much worse off than with browsers as you will have zero say in your experience navigating the digital world. And some local/open source AI wont be a solution either, because scraping access to websites will be tailored to specific companies, similar to how last years a lot of platforms have closed their apis and essentially rendered useless most third-party clients.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ahartmetz 2y ago
No, it isn't, and no, let's not do that.
johntitorjr 2y ago
Is there a good alternative to thunderbird on desktop? Edit - Windows options? For web access I use RoundCube. FairEmail on Android.
- pmlnr 2y ago
  Gnome Evolution works for me. There's Geary, but that never won me over.
- AstralStorm 2y ago
  Kmail also still exists.
- lyu07282 2y ago
  Thunderbird isn't Mozilla, they are a small independent team
solardev 2y ago
Does anyone have an estimate how much work it is to make a Webkit-based browser like Kagi's Orion, but open-source? Not the rendering engine, but the browser around it? Is it something a small team could conceivably do if you placed reasonable constraints on it: one platform at first, no cloud sync, minimal feature set, etc.? Or are we talking years and years of work and dozens of devs?
- CharlesW 2y ago
  > Is it something a small team could conceivably do if you placed reasonable constraints on it: one platform at first, no cloud sync, minimal feature set, etc.? I believe so, yes. There's a `webkitdev` Docker image which includes the required software to build WebKit on Windows¹, and you can use Playwright to run WebKit (including Web Inspector) on Windows very easily². If you wanted to start with Linux, WebKitGTK would presumably be extremely helpful.³ (Tauru uses WebKit on Linux through through `webkit2gtk`, for example.) ¹ https://github.com/WebKitForWindows/docker-webkit-dev https://github.com/WebKitForWindows/docker-webkit-dev ² https://dev.to/dustinbrett/running-the-latest-safari-webkit-on-windows-33pb https://dev.to/dustinbrett/running-the-latest-safari-webkit-... ³ https://webkitgtk.org/ https://webkitgtk.org/
transpaniel 2y ago
DuckDuckGo has browsers btw
- celsoazevedo 2y ago
  Chromium based though.
tbrockman 2y ago
Haven't seen it mentioned yet, but Zen (https://zen-browser.app/ https://zen-browser.app/) seems to me so far like a Firefox fork worth supporting.
diminish 2y ago
Firefox's problem is Mozilla; too much ad money made them evil. copying every chrome feature to boost search ads by breaking usability :( We need a new browser fork! Linux way of governance could be awesome; a star leader/programmer- with community and enterprise contributors. /just switched to librewolf for the short term; after years on firefox since early 0.x days
- timhh 2y ago
  Yeah... how long do you think librewolf is going to survive if Mozilla dies?
uwagar 2y ago
i had turned off the data collection and today i noticed after updating the browser, its back on and studies are on too :(
lazyeye 2y ago
Also the Mullvad browser which is based on the Tor browser but with the Tor bit removed. Note: it doesnt require a vpn. https://mullvad.net/en/browser https://mullvad.net/en/browser
- keernan 2y ago
  Tor Browser is Firefox (modified for Tor) but updated with each Firefox update.
  - lazyeye 2y ago
    Yep am aware of that.
its-summertime 2y ago
LibreWolf, Waterfox: Both kinda just Firefox ESR with a policies.json file, can just use Firefox with said file and get the same result. Ungoogled Chromium, from what I tested, since it doesn't ask google anything (it can't, google domains are completely replaced with invalid domains across the entire browser), it in turn doesn't check cert revocation. Trading losing privacy with Mozilla to losing privacy and security with everyone, seems bad. "While there is some alarmism" I feel that is poor form to write what could be considered alarmism and then have such a statement.
eviks 2y ago
> the void will be replaced by other incumbents, especially since Privacy protections and Ad-blockers are values that attract a certain following And other bright future arguments If this were true, we wouldn't be in such a dire state now, but already have a bunch of solid alternatives
keernan 2y ago
Haven't seen Opera on the list. I regularly use 6 browsers daily, each with different security/privacy settings - one with everything blocked but for my financial and health related sites. And I use Opera as a weak alternative to when I don't need Tor. Opera comes with a built-in free VPN, which I primarily use to get around reddit's aggressive efforts to block anonymous/multiple accounts. While I don't spend much time on Opera (I don't use reddit much), it's a pretty decent browser. I seem to recall hearing about some issues people had with Opera in the past, but I can't recall the details.
standardly 2y ago
So my takeaway from the thread is.. No browser is good, and there is no acceptable alternative currently. Got it, thanks guys

280 points by ekianjo 2y ago

HackerThemAll 2y ago

[flagged]

devnullbrain 2y ago
The majority of suggestions in TFA do not use Chromium.
- hedora 2y ago
  The majority use Firefox, contrary to the title. All but two use Chromium or Firefox. One is hoping to release something usable next year. The other one is Gnome Web.

layer8 2y ago

I’ll repeat my comment from yesterday on another Firefox thread: In terms of open source there are really only Chromium- and Firefox-derived browsers (I’m disregarding projects like the still pre-alpha Ladybird here). With Chromium browsers, you’re still subject to Google’s whims in the long term, such as removal of V3 extension support. (I.e. a conceivable fork with V3 compatibility will inevitably become too difficult to keep up to date with the mainline.) If Mozilla dies, Firefox and derivatives will in all likelihood wither away as well. IMO there is no alternative to supporting Mozilla, and also keeping them accountable and criticizing them where criticism is due. They are still roughly the good guys, even if sometimes misguided. The topic of Firefox and ads is nothing new: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28783381 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28783381 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36351322 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36351322 https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/improving-online-advertising/ https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/improving-online-adverti... One alternative recommended by the present article, Brave, is dabbling in ads as well: https://brave.com/brave-ads/ https://brave.com/brave-ads/

drpossum 2y ago
> Firefox and derivatives will in all likelihood wither away as well No, they won't. The community will pick them up and maintain them sensibly because there will be a need. The best thing that could happen to Firefox would be Mozilla dying. If you disagree, you can look at decades of Linux being successful despite endless bellowing about how it couldn't survive until it did. It did because it fit a sorely needed open source operating system niche. BSD failed to meet that exactly because it was controlled at the time by selfish garbage organizations.
- layer8 2y ago
  Linux is majorly being developed and maintained by paid company employees. What interest would companies have in maintaining Firefox? They don’t seem to be very interested in contributing to Firefox development today. Another data point is that Microsoft gave up on their original Edge browser engine because using Chromium was ultimately easier than chasing Chrome compatibility. Who will defend Firefox’s interests in WHATWG? In the best case, it would result in something akin to today’s Mozilla Foundation.
  - gsich 2y ago
    CA/Browser Forum or ISRG.
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    A “maintenance and security only” trajectory for Firefox would be most interesting to me. Microsoft couldn’t keep up with Chrome, but that’s because they are a company that needs to be seen doing flashy things. Firefox developed by the community could reject frivolous new features and move a lot slower than Chrome. The web is heading in a shitty direction anyway, so moving slower is better.
    - layer8 2y ago
      There are Firefox derivatives, listed in the article, whose goals are roughly that. But I don’t think they can be successful long-term, meaning other than for a 0.1% niche, if they don’t keep up with web standards. And currently Mozilla is doing the heavy lifting for that.

econ 2y ago

Besides crypto mining there seem to be no new ideas that made it onto this page. Brave couldn't find time to maintain IPFS the rest of the browsers are stuck in a kind of "no one owns a fax machine" vision. TOR also seems fun out of the box. Are there other newer things in the works or that would look good on a browser?

hedora 2y ago
I miss bbs’s, gopher and nntp. I’m serious: They were much more user-respecting than the web.
- econ 2y ago
  It's strange isn't it? In other areas there are so many projects no one can keep up. Now that html has grown into an application platform I would like to see some new document types. Say, turn readability into its own document type. Headings, text images and video. Give it a sticky hamburger menu with links in it. A spec for how the user should be able to style the doc. A protocol to check for new versions. Then freeze it forever. Similarly there could be standard forms the way the paper world has them. Or something else that bags a bunch of obvious permissions into one easy to use thing.

cphoover 2y ago

Isn’t that patch just converting inline strings to localized/internationalized strings?

wtallis 2y ago
No, it's not changing anything from an internationalization perspective. It's introducing a change to the content, gated by a 'firefox-tou' feature flag, and tagging the old text with an expiration date of 25-04-2025. The effect is that bits like "and we don’t sell your personal data" will be going away.

darthrupert 2y ago

Right now: Librewolf. Perhaps later: Ladybird.

javajosh 2y ago

There are two big error modes that we need to look out for when reacting in anger. First is to not jump from the frying pan into the fire by adopting a browser that makes nice sounding claims but really has no way to back them up. Installing a blob from a random website is never a good idea, especially when it's a browser. Personally, I think Librewolf is worth the risk but time may proved me wrong. The second error is a bit more subtle in that we need to think more deeply about how to fund browser development such that protects user interest. Clearly there are very powerful and pervasive market forces that Will attempt to warp any browser project into selling user data. That's true for all ubiquitous platform software, but the browser is particularly vulnerable because it exists at a high level of abstraction and therefore high level of utility. So I will make a prediction that the next successful privacy focused browser is going to be something like Cursor, a fork of a well-known browser engine with built-in local AI in service of the user only. This project will have to be a loss leader for another money making entity that requires a truly secure and private platform.

bee_rider 2y ago
One of the browsers listed in GNU IceCat. They are one of the few organizations that can probably be trusted not to join the ad blob. So, that could be an interesting option.
- SkiFire13 2y ago
  GNU IceCat is still based on Firefox. Sure, it may remove tracking and some other sketchy stuff, but ultimately it's not a replacement for Firefox because if Firefox dies then GNU IceCat does as well.

TZubiri 2y ago

Remind me, what was wrong with chromium?

gkbrk 2y ago
Built and controlled by the largest ad company in the world, and recently removed crucial ad blocking APIs?
- hedora 2y ago
  Also, oh my god, the enshittifcation! I had to install it for some work thing, and booting a clean copy reminds me of a peak pre-loaded-software windows box. All they need to add to reach full feature parity is a Candy Crush captcha that gates the “login to enhance google tracking” and “switch search engines” dialogs. I honestly don’t understand how people put up with the boiled frog crap from Google. The last time I ran a test query, the ads pushed 100% of the search results off the front page.
  - arccy 2y ago
    that sounds like you installed edge not chrome...
- TZubiri 2y ago
  so you want software you don't pay for but you also don't want ads in your gratis software. and I imagine also that you are a software dev and you want to get paid for your efforts yourself. Got it.
  - Novosell 2y ago
    You don't know if they would be willing to pay or not. I'd be willing to pay for a browser which truly had its users best in mind. As far as I know, no such browser exists.
    - TZubiri 2y ago

thomassmith65 2y ago

'Ladybird' browser has so much buzz this year, and seems close to a proper release. This is the best week ever for the SerenityOS guy. He must be over the moon.

moooo99 2y ago
The Ladybird project is targeting an alpha release in 2026. they do make a lot of progress, but they are nowehere near a „proper release“.
- thomassmith65 2y ago
  My wording was poor. What I meant was: a release that doesn't require building from source. Also 'close' may have come across like 'days away' which is not what I meant.
- jpc0 2y ago
  Last I heard they are targeting an alpha this year all things going well. > https://youtu.be/xuf1mcYuCaI?si=-RGFmUkrNLTz-7GR https://youtu.be/xuf1mcYuCaI?si=-RGFmUkrNLTz-7GR

Steven420 2y ago

Why isn't everyone calling for the board of Mozilla to step down? They haven't had the best interests of there users in mind for a long time.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> They haven't had the best interests of there users in mind for a long time Mozilla are a non-profit. They don’t work for their users. I’m honestly convinced a non-profit open-source model isn’t a good fit for browser development. Kagi’s Orion [1] has the right idea. If the users pay you’re accountable to them. [1] https://kagi.com/orion/ https://kagi.com/orion/
- AstralStorm 2y ago
  Really? How many requested features have they implemented? Do you vote with the amount of money you pay to them?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > How many requested features have they implemented? One! And I haven’t even started paying for Orion directly! (I pay healthily for their search product.)
- protimewaster 2y ago
  > If the users pay you’re accountable to them. Except, apparently, the paying users that don't use Apple hardware.
  - Etheryte 2y ago
    Development costs money. This is outlined in their FAQ [0]: > Are there plans for a Windows/Linux/Android version of Orion? > We currently do not have the resources to hire a new team to do any of these platforms yet. Since Orion is funded by its users only, it is entirely up to the number of subscribers and Orion+ sales we have that will enable funding a new team to make Orion for any new platform. [0] https://help.kagi.com/orion/faq/faq.html#other_os_support https://help.kagi.com/orion/faq/faq.html#other_os_support

tambre 2y ago

Side note: the site has an IPv4-mapped IPv6 address as its AAAA record. Surprisingly this actually works. Unfortunately there's no way to contact them over email to let them know that it's wrong/useless.

ElectronBadger 2y ago

I've already switched to Vivaldi some time ago, no regrets. https://vivaldi.com/desktop/ https://vivaldi.com/desktop/ https://vivaldi.com/for-a-better-web/ https://vivaldi.com/for-a-better-web/ https://vivaldi.com/we-respect-your-privacy/ https://vivaldi.com/we-respect-your-privacy/

SkiFire13 2y ago
Vivaldi is still chromium based.
- voidee 2y ago
  Yes, but one of the best alternatives until Ladybird is ready. Librewolf, Vivaldi, Orion (iOS and macOS only) are all solid options.
  - SkiFire13 2y ago
    To me something Chromium based is just not a good alternative, since you'll still play in Google's hands. Librewolf is based on Firefox. If Firefox dies then Librewolf is done as well. Orion is Webkit-based, which is not too bad, but as you said it's ios and macOS only.
isodev 2y ago
Agreed, this should've been the Chromium mention instead of Brave (crypto, ads, that CEO...)
- ciupicri 2y ago
  What's wrong with Brave's CEO?
  - kbelder 2y ago
    They're mad he sided with the majority of the state on ballot measure 8 seventeen years ago.

the__alchemist 2y ago

This is rough: There are many types of popular software that aren't that big of a deal to re-implement. You could look at examples of popular software and think "This blows, I'll re-invent it". With care, dedication, and careful management, you could do it. This doesn't mean people will switch from the popular established software, but you could do it. Web browsers are not one of these. Way too complicated, largely due to the complicated and changing DOM and JS specs.

augustk 2y ago
I think it would be a good idea to define a subset of the current web technologies and make all important sites like banks, tax office etc. to adhere to this standard basic functionality. It also needs a logo which can be used on these sites.
- kuhaku22 2y ago
  We used to have such a thing: it was called HTML. Sites were supposed to have their content in the HTML, and if JS wasn't enabled, you'd still get the semantic hypertext. A vast majority of web pages are text and images, and don't actually require fancy CSS/JS. But the ship of progressive enhancement has long sailed,[0] and tons of static sites have JS, and all the hundreds of APIs that entails, baked into their functionality. Hell, there are many sites nowadays that will use JS to stream the HTML to your device for some reason. [0]: JQuery/AJAX were probably the beginning of the end. But even without those, you had developers doing things like putting main images in CSS using the background property, overloading text with icon fonts, loading videos using "blob:" crap, or other abuse of semantics. Once it became possible to push more state to the browser instead of the server, the floodgates opened. I remember in the dial-up days, you could take a browser offline, and webpages would function perfectly, yet now, even hitting the back button can be a gamble. Now, hitting File > Save fails 95% of the time for me.
  - augustk 2y ago
    I wholeheartedly agree. When was progressive enhancement thrown out the window? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_enhancement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_enhancement

lxgr 2y ago

Ah yes, the long-term viable strategy of replacing Firefox with a Firefox fork, that will somehow still receive upstream updates from... somewhere.

swed420 2y ago
Doesn't need to be long-term viable. Forks like LibreWolf are sufficient to fill the gap until true alternatives like Ladybird are ready.
bmacho 2y ago
What about - upstream firefox - volunteers - paid developers
- beej71 2y ago
  I'd pay $100 per year to support Firefox, no problem. Most people probably wouldn't be willing to go more than $20. But I do wonder how many of us there are who would pay, and what kind of dev team that would support.

throwaway81523 2y ago

The problem is the complexity of the web itself, and that complexity was to some extent created and amplified by Firefox. IDK if there is any escape other than to treat the existing web as a modern day AOL that sensible users ignore in favor of a clean niche alternative. Sort of like GNU/Linux users in the ocean of Windows.

dmos62 2y ago

I wonder if I'm in the minority in not caring about Firefox's privacy subtleties, as long as I get good extension support. I just want a different browser vendor than my ad and video vendor (Google).

solardev 2y ago
I don't even want that. I just want Chrome with adblock :( If Google would just let me pay for Chrome and Search without ads, the way YouTube does, I'd happily pay for both. They can still have my data as long as they don't show me ads.
- tim333 2y ago
  Chrome with adblock still seems a thing? It's what I'm typing this on and apparently ublock lite works fine with v3.

degrees57 2y ago

I'd like to ask if there is a bookmark sync function and plugin sync function in any of these alternatives. It does seem to me that Mozilla corporation management has become corrupted, and will only get worse; so I'd like to move off Mozilla Firefox and onto something else. But I really like that when I wipe a machine and install a new OS, first I install the Bitwarden plugin, then that lets me log in to the Mozilla account, and then that syncs down all my plugins and bookmarks into Firefox. I really like my Temporary Containers plugin in Firefox, for example, in addition to uBlock Origin. But all of them, really: the GNU Terry Pratchet plugin is fun. The Mozilla Firefox solution does also work both on Linux and Windows. If there is some other form of sync for plugins and bookmarks, then I'd leap at Librewolf or Waterfox or Icecat. But I am unaware of a sync solution that would work. Anyone have something they like? I can self-host if that is an option.

homebrewer 2y ago
Brave has sync which does not rely on a centralized server — it's peer to peer between your machines only. I encourage you to do your own research on it because the hivemind's opinion was solidified long ago and results in repeating lots of nonsense that has little connection to reality. (I don't use it except for web development, but I also despise FUD.)
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > the hivemind's opinion was solidified long ago I have vetoed it at several organisations on the basis of its crypto tie in. Has that changed?
- degrees57 2y ago
  Thank you; I didn't know that Brave has a peer-to-peer sync.
- weikju 2y ago
  > Brave has sync which does not rely on a centralized server Didn't they change that to some more centralized solution in the past couple of years, citing difficulties with peer-to-peer syncing? > Sync v1 was a completely custom sync system, built as part of the old “Muon” browser. Sync v1 stored all data into an encrypted log on S3. New browsers joining the sync chain had to download all the logs and re-assemble the events in order. The browsers were also responsible for cleaning up out of date data records. > Sync v2 was rebuilt to be more directly compatible with the Chromium sync system (Chromium is the same open source base of Google’s Chrome and Brave). Brave built a sync server that more directly followed Chromium’s sync protocol, but defaulting instead to use encrypted data records. Sync v2 more easily supports more sync data types, while still keeping the client side data encrypted, so only you can see your data. https://support.brave.com/hc/en-us/articles/360047642371-Sync-FAQ https://support.brave.com/hc/en-us/articles/360047642371-Syn...

42772827 2y ago

The only chance of an another browser engine being successful at this point is if a nation state funds it

haswell 2y ago

If you’re looking for alternate browsers, at least consider a Firefox fork (LibreWolf, Floorp, etc.) Moving to a Chromium derivative seems completely counterproductive in the big picture and feeds the Chrome beast. While I am no fan of Mozilla’s moves here, I think people are transferring their anger and distrust at the worst offenders in the market to Mozilla, and I worry that the end result will be much worse if we just abandon Mozilla.

jillesvangurp 2y ago

A bunch of Firefox and Chromium derivatives are not a long term solution. The good news is that both Chromium and Firefox are open source. The bad news is that Google is funding these (and Safari too) via advertisement revenue. So, Google holds a lot of power here. And absolute power corrupts absolutely. The core of the issue is that Google pays directly or indirectly for the salaries of most of those working on Chrome/Chromium, Firefox, and Safari. Their money is funding the whole thing. Alternatives like Ladybird that lack this funding and commercial backing don't stand much of a chance to catch up technically. Unless they nail a sustainable funding model that isn't Google bribing them into submission. Both Chromium and Firefox are fixable and there's plenty left to salvage. Firefox has loads of regular contributors. Mozilla employs many of them of course but not all. Aside from the drama at Mozilla, it's a pretty well run and healthy open source project. Same with Chromium probably. Though most developers are likely Google employed currently. The solution isn't moving the problem to some new project but actually addressing the core issue. Which would be funding them properly.

solardev 2y ago
Google funds Safari too? Edit: Yeah, about $20 billion to be the default search: https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/26/23933206/google-apple-search-deal-safari-18-billion https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/26/23933206/google-apple-se...
- jillesvangurp 2y ago
  Glad you clarified that. 20 billion is not nothing. Even for Apple.
- seventh12 2y ago
  Well that is likely to end soon I would wager :)
ciupicri 2y ago
Will Mozilla use the money to improve the browser (engine) or will it use it for left politics stuff (and big salaries for executives)?

corny 2y ago

There's no mention yet of Kagi's Orion browser. What are people's thoughts on that?

01100011 2y ago
Looks like it is Mac/iOS only.
AstralStorm 2y ago
It's WebKit. The number of browser UIs is less relevant than the engines.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

binary132 2y ago

Free computing can’t really exist in an ecosystem where only multimillion dollar projects can survive and be adequately secure. We need to drastically reduce the complexity of computing if we want it on our terms and without total dependency on megacorporations and capital. Expecting the state to fund it is also unrealistic.

bergie 2y ago

I've deleted all Mozilla software on my devices. Used to run Firefox everywhere. For now trying to live with the mixture of Safari (iOS, MacOS) and the DDG browser (Android). No replacement for Pocket so far, but also not sure if I really need one.

AstralStorm 2y ago
Hate to break it to you, but DDG browser is either WebView, WebView2 or WebKit dependent on the platform. Note how two of those are still Chromium.
- transpaniel 2y ago
  They do add a lot of extra privacy protections, which includes disabling some of the engine functionality. And btw many of the bad Google stuff is in chrome, but not in chromium. So having chromium is not necessarily that bad by itself. Brave is also chromium under the hood.
dartharva 2y ago
> No replacement for Pocket so far, but also not sure if I really need one. I just use a single-member (self) Whatsapp group.
- bergie 2y ago
  You're suggesting to give the content to Facebook instead of Mozilla?
  - dartharva 2y ago
    WhatsApp chats are E2E-encrypted.
anotherevan 2y ago
Instapaper[1] and Wallabag[2] would be the two main alternatives to Pocket, I think. Wallabag is self-hosting although I believe there are hosted services around as well. Cannot get either of them to integrate with my Kobo ereader like Pocket does, though. :-( [1] https://www.instapaper.com/ https://www.instapaper.com/ [2] https://wallabag.org/ https://wallabag.org/

motohagiography 2y ago

why do we still need general purpose browsers anyway. a custom X client, an HN client, an OpenAI client are likely sufficient for most purposes. mainstream news sites are landfills of terrible banner ad tech. Once we can use AI for efficient scraping into e-paper interfaces, the smart people will migrate to a quieter luxury experience, probably something more modular than a browser.

qwerpy 2y ago
Not every organization can make decent clients/apps. And those that can will embed unblockable ads and dark patterns into them. For example Amazon.com is usable with an adblocker but the Amazon app is a horrific mess of ads. Facebook.com can be made barely usable using a dedicated browser extension but their app is similarly 95% ads and “suggested content” and 5% actual content from your friends.
AstralStorm 2y ago
They are not. Most of the apps embed a browser. HN client would use what, RSS? HN does not have an API to get at the posts now? X is dead and buried. Pipewire is almost ready instead for the purpose, but the UI needs to be made. And remote input handling. OpenAI is a proprietary system, it can crash and burn at you at any time. Go run Sonnet or Claude or something.
hnthrowaway4633 2y ago
GPT-4.5 hallucinates over 1/3 of its answers in benchmarks, so I don't think an OpenAI client will be able to replace browsers for knowledge acquisition anytime soon.
freehorse 2y ago
And then wait until the AI starts serving you ads, in which case you will be much worse off than with browsers as you will have zero say in your experience navigating the digital world. And some local/open source AI wont be a solution either, because scraping access to websites will be tailored to specific companies, similar to how last years a lot of platforms have closed their apis and essentially rendered useless most third-party clients.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ahartmetz 2y ago

No, it isn't, and no, let's not do that.

johntitorjr 2y ago

Is there a good alternative to thunderbird on desktop? Edit - Windows options? For web access I use RoundCube. FairEmail on Android.

pmlnr 2y ago
Gnome Evolution works for me. There's Geary, but that never won me over.
AstralStorm 2y ago
Kmail also still exists.
lyu07282 2y ago
Thunderbird isn't Mozilla, they are a small independent team

solardev 2y ago

Does anyone have an estimate how much work it is to make a Webkit-based browser like Kagi's Orion, but open-source? Not the rendering engine, but the browser around it? Is it something a small team could conceivably do if you placed reasonable constraints on it: one platform at first, no cloud sync, minimal feature set, etc.? Or are we talking years and years of work and dozens of devs?

CharlesW 2y ago
> Is it something a small team could conceivably do if you placed reasonable constraints on it: one platform at first, no cloud sync, minimal feature set, etc.? I believe so, yes. There's a `webkitdev` Docker image which includes the required software to build WebKit on Windows¹, and you can use Playwright to run WebKit (including Web Inspector) on Windows very easily². If you wanted to start with Linux, WebKitGTK would presumably be extremely helpful.³ (Tauru uses WebKit on Linux through through `webkit2gtk`, for example.) ¹ https://github.com/WebKitForWindows/docker-webkit-dev https://github.com/WebKitForWindows/docker-webkit-dev ² https://dev.to/dustinbrett/running-the-latest-safari-webkit-on-windows-33pb https://dev.to/dustinbrett/running-the-latest-safari-webkit-... ³ https://webkitgtk.org/ https://webkitgtk.org/

transpaniel 2y ago

DuckDuckGo has browsers btw

celsoazevedo 2y ago
Chromium based though.

tbrockman 2y ago

Haven't seen it mentioned yet, but Zen (https://zen-browser.app/ https://zen-browser.app/) seems to me so far like a Firefox fork worth supporting.

diminish 2y ago

Firefox's problem is Mozilla; too much ad money made them evil. copying every chrome feature to boost search ads by breaking usability :( We need a new browser fork! Linux way of governance could be awesome; a star leader/programmer- with community and enterprise contributors. /just switched to librewolf for the short term; after years on firefox since early 0.x days

timhh 2y ago
Yeah... how long do you think librewolf is going to survive if Mozilla dies?

uwagar 2y ago

i had turned off the data collection and today i noticed after updating the browser, its back on and studies are on too :(

lazyeye 2y ago

Also the Mullvad browser which is based on the Tor browser but with the Tor bit removed. Note: it doesnt require a vpn. https://mullvad.net/en/browser https://mullvad.net/en/browser

keernan 2y ago
Tor Browser is Firefox (modified for Tor) but updated with each Firefox update.
- lazyeye 2y ago
  Yep am aware of that.

its-summertime 2y ago

LibreWolf, Waterfox: Both kinda just Firefox ESR with a policies.json file, can just use Firefox with said file and get the same result. Ungoogled Chromium, from what I tested, since it doesn't ask google anything (it can't, google domains are completely replaced with invalid domains across the entire browser), it in turn doesn't check cert revocation. Trading losing privacy with Mozilla to losing privacy and security with everyone, seems bad. "While there is some alarmism" I feel that is poor form to write what could be considered alarmism and then have such a statement.

eviks 2y ago

> the void will be replaced by other incumbents, especially since Privacy protections and Ad-blockers are values that attract a certain following And other bright future arguments If this were true, we wouldn't be in such a dire state now, but already have a bunch of solid alternatives

keernan 2y ago

Haven't seen Opera on the list. I regularly use 6 browsers daily, each with different security/privacy settings - one with everything blocked but for my financial and health related sites. And I use Opera as a weak alternative to when I don't need Tor. Opera comes with a built-in free VPN, which I primarily use to get around reddit's aggressive efforts to block anonymous/multiple accounts. While I don't spend much time on Opera (I don't use reddit much), it's a pretty decent browser. I seem to recall hearing about some issues people had with Opera in the past, but I can't recall the details.

standardly 2y ago

So my takeaway from the thread is.. No browser is good, and there is no acceptable alternative currently. Got it, thanks guys