7 ms·

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 disr

• 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.
      • palata 2y ago
        > The web is heading in a shitty direction anyway, so moving slower is better. I completely agree, though what I believe would happen if Firefox went to maintenance mode is that fewer and fewer websites would work on it. It's already the case that I sometimes need to switch to Chromium to do some things because those shitty websites only work on Chromium.
        • hedora 2y ago
          They could partner with Apple. As long as the courts don’t force Apple to allow Chromium on iOS, those shitty web sites will work on safari. Firefox tends to be ahead of safari in new features. As an iOS user, I am happy that I cannot install alternative browsers. If I could, those shitty websites would force me to install Chrome. I currently have zero google branded apps on my phone. (Some third party apps that I need bundle google tracking crap…) Edit: I guess I should add that I prefer Firefox to Safari, but I’ve watched devs try to only support Safari and Chrome. Once they do that, they almost always accidentally support Firefox too.
  • wslh 2y ago
    Which are the selfish BSD organizations you are referring to?
    • em-bee 2y ago
      the owners of the original code that BSD is based on. BSD was free, but the code owners thought otherwise, spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt, which stopped it from filling the needs that linux then ended up filling.
  • linguae 2y ago
    At the time of early Linux, BSD was still a UC Berkeley Computer Systems Research Group project, though the CSRG would disband after 4.4BSD was released sometime in 1994-1995. BSD had a user base even in the days when using BSD required an AT&T Unix license. In the late 1980s and early 1990s there was an effort to replace the AT&T bits with open source bits. This reached a breakthrough in 1991 when all that was remaining was six kernel files, which 386BSD was able to fill in that gap. 1991 was the year Linux 0.01 was released. Unfortunately, BSD’s growth was stunted due to the lawsuit between AT&T (USL) and BSDi, where there were allegations over the open source code: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Laboratories,_Inc._v._Berkeley_Software_Design,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Laboratories,_In.... By the time the lawsuit was settled, Linux had already captured the attention of those wanting a FOSS Unix-like operating system. However, it’s quite remarkable how FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD found niches in the 1990s and are still around today. They may lack Linux’s market share, and admittedly they don’t have the same levels of driver and application support as Linux, but they are excellent operating systems that serve their niches well.
  • slightwinder 2y ago
    > The community will pick them up and maintain them sensibly because there will be a need. The community can't offer the resources and competence necessary for maintaining a Browser on the same high level as Mozilla is doing now. The community would likely also not be able to influence, or even just follow, the workgroups for web-standards. Ultimately, they would be left out and have to play a game of catch. Of course, how much of that would be necessary is a different question, but long term, in a world without Mozilla, any Firefox-fork would become slowly useless, or even fast if Google decides to abandon the free web and go down a different route. If you want to see how useful this will end, look at all the other browser out there which are not Blink-based, a Firefox-fork or Safari. They do exist, and they all are pretty awful for general usage.
    • drpossum 2y ago
      Ladybird is on the trajectory to do this. I agree it's an enormous project and different from a lot of other open-source offerings, but I think there very well could be even corporate offerings support. They'd support it the same way Linux and other big projects (like what Red Hat and Apache do) because there's business needs for browsers that aren't Chrome or Safari. It's not all, but it doesn't take much imagining some industries want a stable open source browser with, say, security features they can toggle in to their standards. I hear people here all the time who say they would pay for a good browser but won't because Mozilla doesn't spend it on the browser. I can see a productive marriage.
      • slightwinder 2y ago
        Ladybird has the advantage that they can start with a new architecture, and they seem willing to sacrifice features. But I doubt we will see them become a real competitor for Chrome and Firefox. And we will have to see whether they will at least support DRM-services like Netflix, YouTube, etc. making them a viable alternative for the casual users, giving some foundation for gaining traction in mainstream.
• blueflow 2y ago
  Things like this have been happening ever other year. I'm evaluating returning to an offline life.
  • sciens3_ 2y ago
    Yes, like: - Leaving my smartphone in the car in case I must MFA for work or have for safety... I’d love to use a flip phone or minimal smartphone that only had camera, FaceTime, maps and an authenticator; I could just delete apps, but I don’t want to be able to install anything that wastes my life. - If others are watching streaming video, could go somewhere else to read. But, I may not have adequate willpower, and I struggle to read.
• kmlx 2y ago
  > 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). isn’t webkit open source? https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit or maybe are you referring to something else?
  • layer8 2y ago
    WebKit is a browser engine, not a browser. There is no open-source browser based on it that you could use as an alternative to Firefox.
    • figomore 2y ago
      Gnome Web is based on WebKit.
      • layer8 2y ago
        I should have added “cross-platform”. It’s not a viable alternative for most Firefox users.
        • ranger_danger 2y ago
          There are several, just none that are still maintained. But webkit is still open source and there's no reason someone could not fork or start up a new browser project with 90% of the work already done by webkit, you just need a GUI.
    • eadmund 2y ago
      Emacs supports browsing with WebKit: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Embedded-WebKit-Widgets.html https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Em... This is distinct from its own Emacs Web Wowser, which is a more primitive browser (but quite good for quite a lot!).
    • kmlx 2y ago
      > There is no open-source browser based on it that you could use as an alternative to Firefox. here you go: https://github.com/duckduckgo/apple-browsers https://github.com/duckduckgo/apple-browsers
• MaKey 2y ago
  Nitpick: Chrome removed V2 Manifest support, not V3. Firefox still supports it.
• josh-sematic 2y ago
  I can’t wait until Servo has spun up sufficiently. https://servo.org/ https://servo.org/
  • xeonmc 2y ago
    Turns out Mozilla’s abandonment was a blessing in disguise.
  • jpc0 2y ago
    In the latest Ladybird update the graphs show servo is quite a bit behind Flow and Ladybird itself. Right now ladybird is the closest to getting past the mark and has the most momentum by a long shot. As great as having another option would be, Servo is not a browser, if people were going to build a browser on a different engine then webkit is perfectly viable right now, but people don't.
    • josh-sematic 2y ago
      Agreed that (a) it’s not a browser and (b) it’s not ready for prime time. In the meantime it’s great that there is a diversity of options. But I am glad there are new engines being worked on in the wings, and I think servo has potential to be a pretty solid one especially with its parallel rendering.
      • jpc0 2y ago
        I agree. I would love to see ladybird and servo based browsers, I would even install both just like I currently use Safari and Chromium based and Firefox derived.
    • fabrice_d 2y ago
      Ladybird is not closer than Servo from achieving anything, because the wpt tests scores are not that relevant sinc they are not weighted by any usefulness factor. The Ladybird team are very good at marketing themselves but their technical choices are questionable. Who can think that it's a good idea to start a new web runtime in C++? They said they would switch to Swift but that doesn't seem to happen if you look at the recent commit history.
• demosthanos 2y ago
  > IMO there is no alternative to supporting Mozilla, and also keeping them accountable and criticizing them where criticism is due. If there is no alternative to supporting Mozilla, how do we keep them accountable? If they know that they're the only hope for a cross-platform browser that isn't developed by Google, then they know that any outrage is a bluff that can't have teeth because they're indispensable. > They are still roughly the good guys, even if sometimes misguided. There aren't any good guys here, there are just people doing people things. Mozilla is more than sometimes misguided, they've been essentially permanently distracted from Firefox as the core mission for more than ten years now. Their organization is designed in a way that makes funding Firefox directly impossible, and they haven't made any moves to fix it. Instead they set up failed side project after failed side project and repeatedly alienate their core with ads, while insisting that donations couldn't possibly work in spite of the fact that Thunderbird clearly shows that they can—as long as the project is unshackled from the mess that is Mozilla. It might well be that the best thing that could happen for Firefox would be for it to get evicted from Mozilla like Thunderbird was.
  • aquova 2y ago
    > If there is no alternative to supporting Mozilla, how do we keep them accountable? If they know that they're the only hope for a cross-platform browser that isn't developed by Google, then they know that any outrage is a bluff that can't have teeth because they're indispensable. Except they're not indispensable. They're now the fourth place browser in terms of market share on a good day, and dwindling. They need all the good will they can get, and this sort of discussion amongst their most hardcore audience is exactly what keeps them accountable.
    • AstralStorm 2y ago
      Can you name other browser engines in play? I'm waiting. While neither Mozilla nor Firefox are not indispensable, Gecko is. We literally have three working rendering engines: Chromium/V3, Gecko/Spidermonkey and ... Long nothing ... WebKit/KHTML?
      • 2y ago
• ensignavenger 2y ago
  Longer term, I think our best hope is the Servo project, and I would encourage anyone who is able to support Servo development.
• sciens3_ 2y ago
  > One alternative recommended by the present article, Brave, is dabbling in ads as well It blocks ads by default. It also doesn’t indicate it would sell my data. So, I’m using Brave or anything that doesn’t sell my data until Ladybird is available.
  • haswell 2y ago
    If you’re philosophically opposed to what Firefox is doing, Firefox forks like LibreWolf, Floorp, etc. seem like a better place to turn. Moving to Brave is just supporting a Chrome monoculture in the long run, and the problems with Chrome are far worse than the problems with Firefox.
• Szpadel 2y ago
  maybe unpopular opinion, but I would be happy to pay small yearly subscription so they could focus on development instead of harvesting money from my data
  • makeitdouble 2y ago
    That's what most of us want but can't: your only option is to donate to Mozilla, which will then do whatever it wants with your money. Mozilla could allow for donation/services exclusively bound to develop Firefox, but at this point they have absolutely no incentive to do so and unsurprisingly have always refused to do it.
  • 01100011 2y ago
    What about Opera?
    • pmlnr 2y ago
      Opera is chrome based. the last non chrome opera was 12.x
    • Arrowmaster 2y ago
      I believe it was sold to a Chinese company. But they now deal in payday loans. Also any company that advertises as much with online influencers as Opera does is always terrible. https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/opera-defends-its-android-apps-after-accusation-of-predatory-lending/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/opera-defends-its-android-a...
• tannhaeuser 2y ago
  Repeating my earlier comment as well: FWIW, webkit's github [1] links directly to the "Epiphany Technology Preview" at gnome.org as a supported project. I have no idea if that leads to a full-featured modern browser for Linux, but I'm pretty sure if it doesn't, there should be a fork that does or creating one might be worth considering, and should be even fun and relatively easy to get kicked off. Also, since Webkit is based on KHTML, there might be re-integrations into KDE worth exploring. Ages ago there used to be Safari builds for Windows Apple created to get Safari into the hand of web developers that weren't using Macs, but it doesn't look like there's anything left to pickup. [1]: https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit
  • marcthe12 2y ago
    Epiphany is a webkit browser for linux and due webkit architecture, gtkwebkit uses alot of gnome components such as libsoup and gstreamer. The biggest flaw is the webrtc support is missing so not online meetings.
• JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > IMO there is no alternative to supporting Mozilla If open source is your ride or die, sure. My unfortunate takeaway is non profit, open source and free isn’t a good fit for browser development. Kagi’s Orion [1] is a solid WebKit browser and to where I’m shifting my support. (I’ve been a medium-sized fundraiser for Mozilla. They’re going to see seven-figure chargebacks from a variety of directions over the coming weeks.) > One alternative recommended by the present article, Brave, is dabbling in ads as well And crypto. Hard pass. [1] https://kagi.com/orion/ https://kagi.com/orion/
  • PokemonNoGo 2y ago
    > I’ve been a medium-sized fundraiser for Mozilla. They’re going to see seven-figure chargebacks from a variety of directions over the coming weeks. You donated a seven-figure sum to Mozilla that you are going to chargeback? Sorry i didn't understand this part.
    • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > You donated a seven-figure sum to Mozilla that you are going to chargeback? I helped with fundraisers. The pitch was privacy. I and the others who donated feel we were mislead. (I was never a major donor. But at least one who charged six figures on his Amex has initiated a chargeback.)
      • FieryTransition 2y ago
        Is there a way to litigate Firefox, to pay back the money, based on the false premise they gave? And that the damages extend well beyond a few individuals? Say, the threat of an actual litigation, would help hold them accountable in the future?
        • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
          > Is there a way to litigate Firefox Litigate yes, win, probably not. If the goal is to bleed Mozilla dry, the correct angle is antitrust action against their contract with Google. It’s a non-profit and those were donations. Those who made the donations on a card whom I know are charging it back, that’s the closest to donor accountability we’ll come to.
• isodev 2y ago
  I don't understand articles discussing “trust” and throwing in Brave. Are you unclear what trust means? A proper trustworthy Chromium-based alternative would be Vivaldi. Even more, as a company based mainly in the EU, they've managed to create a fantastic browser while also following all consumer protection mechanisms typical for the region.
  • potsandpans 2y ago
    Could you expand on the trust bit? I recently switched to Brave due to it being the best as blocking adds and fingerprinting. What am I missing that I should be considering?
• lukastyrychtr 2y ago
  I definitely agree. Much more if you need support for screen readers, then you can't use the slowly emerging alternatives even for a test drive, because either the a1y stack is not a priority, or the supporting libraries are not featureful enough.
• andrepd 2y ago
  > Brave, is dabbling in ads as well It's not "dabbling", their whole model is ad-funded and crypto-funded.
• weinzierl 2y ago
  "If Mozilla dies, Firefox and derivatives will in all likelihood wither away [..]" There once was a company with the second most popular browser but it could not survive against the monopoly. People got together and their browser rose as open source like phoenix from the ashes. Initially they even called it Phoenix but switched to Firebird, for reasons I don't remember. Since this was also the name of a database they changed the name again this time to Firefox. Don't you think history could repeat?
  • wtallis 2y ago
    Microsoft was a major contributor to IE's downfall, through their incompetence. Google is doing a much better job of not shooting themselves in the foot with Chrome.
    • weinzierl 2y ago
      Idk, Netscape Navigator was good, but then nothing usable came afterwards while Microsoft had IE4. People hate on IE now, but there was a phase when IE was that best free browser and I say this as someone who breathed open source at the time and who was as Anti-Microsoft as you can imagine. From how I remember it IE's downfall came after Netscape's.
• caycep 2y ago
  debian and the linux kernel survive but somehow manage not to sell ads...
• stodor89 2y ago
  At this point, if they make it inconvenient to browse the web, I'll just browse less. Mozilla just can't stop f**ing up, and half of the websites I use don't work well with Brave.
• TwoNineFive 2y ago
  > They are still roughly the good guys They are not. They are the bad guys. This is just telling people to go back to their abusers. Shame on your morals. Shame on your lack of vision.