18 ms·

Firefox is fine. The people running it are not

333 points by LorenDB 1y ago

incomingpain 1y ago
Great article, i missed the original that spawned this article: https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/17/opinion_column_firefox/ https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/17/opinion_column_firefo... I've been done with firefox for many years. Librewolf, firefox fork, is the way to go; available on flathub. Obviously Brave still being main browser. Mozilla went wrong long ago. They publicly went political and followed through with the firings. They have blogs from the ceo straight up calling for political censorship. Even more odd, it was mostly just US politics which stands out to non-americans. They are focused on everything except the browser and so it was inevitable to decline.
- Bender 1y ago
  I tried librewolf and it made all the exact same calls out that Firefox did on shutdown. Now I just disable the network before killing Firefox and then run bleachbit. I also mount some directories as tmpfs. What are the benefits of librewolf over Firefox? I could not find any. AFAIK its still just Firefox under the hood.
  - karambanoonoo 1y ago
    What calls?
    - Bender 1y ago
      All the same non user initiated calls to Mozilla and other endpoints. Run tcpdump to see them. (both TCP and UDP now) I run a command before I close internet applications and all outbound connections are logged in dmesg via netfilter. Be sure to also log all DNS queries on your firewall.
- GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
  > They have blogs from the ceo straight up calling for political censorship. got any links?
  - zamadatix 1y ago
    Not GP but their mention brings to memory these HN discussion I had read years ago and the comments probably already have more than this thread will discuss: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29884342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29884342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25690941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25690941 It looks like the blog post was taken down several months later, so I had to pull this copy to see what it was https://web.archive.org/web/20210108192114/https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210108192114/https://blog.mozi...
    - happymellon 1y ago
      Doesn't look like censorship at all. > Transparency on advertisers Sounds good. > Transparency on "algorithms" Also sounds good. > Improve algorithms to highlight facts over fiction Considering he isn't calling for anyone to be censored, only promote facts, I don't see much issue.
      - zamadatix 1y ago
        She builds off of "requires more than just the temporary silencing or permanent removal of bad actors from social media platforms" with "Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation". Whether deplatforming or "amplifying factual voices over disinformation" are seen as a good thing, they are censorship. She also mixes some good ideas in that (particularly platform algorithm transparency) of course.
        saubeidl 1y ago
        Is ad-blocking censorship? What about spam filters?
GeekyBear 1y ago
Compared to the people running Chrome, the people running Firefox are merely annoying. My main issue with the people running Mozilla is that they have wasted vast sums of money on executive salaries and their half baked notions of new initiatives the company should take up (and later abandon) that don't involve building web browsers, email clients, or supporting development tools.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- 93po 1y ago
  i wish firefox would have hoarded away their billions of dollars they've received and simply run as a lean mission-oriented company for the next 20 years from those funds. get rid of expensive execs and middle managers and sales and whatever else. have passionate, well-paid developers and open source advocates and nothing else. both make the best possible open source software, and also use your influence and resources to make the pressure from companies like google make the web less shitty
- dimal 1y ago
  All that money wasted is the whole point of Mozilla. It’s been captured by Google. The role of Mozilla is to provide a fig leaf of “competition” while using Google money to pay executives who fulfill that duty. Anything that is successful or innovative, like Rust, Servo, or FakeSpot need to be jettisoned because they are a distraction from Mozilla’s true mission.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- const_cast 1y ago
  > My main issue with the people running Mozilla is that they have wasted vast sums of money on executive salaries and their half baked notions of new initiatives the company should take up (and later abandon) that don't involve building web browsers, email clients, or supporting development tools. Your main issue is in direct contradiction to most people's issue with Firefox - it relies on Chrome for revenue. They repeatedly try other revenue streams and people hate them for that too. It's a lose-lose, because, for some reason, people hate Mozilla almost viscerally. They're held to such a frankly insane standard as compared to Chrome. I mean, Chrome shits on users in every way you could possibly imagine and nobody seems to care. Chrome is married to Google and nobody complains. But Firefox is less married to Google and it's a 100x bigger problem. How? What's the formula here?
ZeroGravitas 1y ago
Weird mix of complaints, attacking Mozilla both from the ultra purity of non-profit web standards side via JWZ while simultaneously complaining they don't run it like a business.
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  It's almost as if cjpearson's unreasonable criticism atop this thread, "...the anti-Mozilla arguments are typically much more vague and directionless..." ... wasn't completely unreasonable.
potato-peeler 1y ago
I have a far more different gripe than this. Firefox seems to needlessly introduce features I barely need. Check their new release, 140.0 They introduced a toggle in the address bar to show the window title. Who tf is asking for this? This browser just needs to be as simple as it can, without all this feature bloat.
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  IDK, a lot of people claim to need to be able to manage several hundred of open tabs.
  - Melonai 1y ago
    I can confirm this use case does exist. My boyfriend (despite my constant disapproval) uses his tabs as essentially a bookmark manager and has around 100+ tabs open at any single time. His tab bar is composed of only barely recognizable icons, but he still manages to find things (more or less). I can not convince him to use tab groups, bookmarks, or sidebar tabs... :)
    - saidinesh5 1y ago
      Yeah but the solution to that has been Treestyle tab for ages... It's just annoying that firefox took away the original tree style tab's ability to hide the main tab bar...
      - mook 1y ago
        Luckily in the mentioned 140 you can now configure Firefox to show tabs in the sidebar, and then actually use the Tree Style Tabs sidebar instead, not showing the native tabs at all.
        masfuerte 1y ago
        The built-in vertical tabs are awful. Hit F11 for full-screen and all of the chrome disappears except for the vertical tabs. Who would want that? I'll try Tree Style instead.
ChrisArchitect 1y ago
Related from last month: Firefox is dead to me – and I'm not the only one who is fed up https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44298286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44298286
dehrmann 1y ago
> Mozilla's leadership is directionless and flailing because it's never had to do, or be, anything else. It's never needed to know how to make a profit, because it never had to make a profit. It's no wonder it has no real direction or vision or clue: it never needed them. It's role-playing being a business.
- saubeidl 1y ago
  The "real" fix would be for Mozilla to become an actual proper non-profit entity. Maybe the EU can buy it and maintain the browser as a critical piece of infrastructure, the same way roads etc are.
  - makeitdouble 1y ago
    > the same way roads etc are Roads are also a model of corruption and inefficiency, fully captured by private actors (in Europe, Vinci etc). And I think there's no way around it past some size, but that might not be the direction we wish for Firefox.
    - mminer237 1y ago
      In the US, road construction is actually pretty competitive. I'm sure there's some corruption, but I think it's done pretty well overall.
      - timschmidt 1y ago
        The following study lists the U.S. as having "moderate to high corruption" in road construction industries: https://www.ijsr.net/getabstract.php?paperid=SR25213001321 https://www.ijsr.net/getabstract.php?paperid=SR25213001321
        rtkwe 1y ago
        The abstract out rights says it's just using a PPP adjusted price vs quality measurement not actually studying real measurable corruption just their arms length proxy measurement. All that really shows is the US gets crappier product for the 'same' money (PPP comparisons are really squishy).
ww520 1y ago
I don't know what's going on in Mozilla. Just today on my security camera NVR, Firefox pops up a dialog in the notification area at the lower right screen of Windows 11, showing an ad for its vertical tab feature, urging me to try it out. The thing is Firefox is rarely used on the NVR and the browser is not running. The only program running is the camera video app (the popup of course obscured the video window). It must be done by the background Firefox Update process. This is a brazen abuse of the notification area that even Microsoft hasn't tried yet.
- paulryanrogers 1y ago
  > This is a brazen abuse of the notification area that even Microsoft hasn't tried yet. Microsoft has advertised OneDrive and other products with scare prompts in those toast notifications.
  - tanjtanjtanj 1y ago
    Heck, the other week I got an ad telling me “Doom: The Dark Ages” had been released and that it is “thrilling” in the toast area. This despite me never having used the Xbox or windows gaming apps and actually having uninstalled them only for an update to decide it should reinstalled
- MintPaw 1y ago
  I got this on all my automated test machines today too. It messes up my screenshots. I get the feeling Firefox is going to lose a lot of good will today.
perryizgr8 1y ago
Firefox performance is really bad in google sites like meet, calendar, docs, youtube. I wonder why they are not working on improving the situation. Everything else is already perfect, just iron out these few issues and be the undisputed leader.
- eptcyka 1y ago
  Didn’t youtube sabotage firefox performance deliberately?
  - knowitnone 1y ago
    Google sabotage firefox performance deliberately
  - Izkata 1y ago
    Originally no, and nowadays it seems like it's a result of that tech debt: Youtube did a frontend rewrite using an early spec of web components, that only Chrome ever fully implemented, and they used Polymer to polyfill other browsers with the idea that they'd implement the spec later and get a performance boost. But the spec changed, so they never did, and Youtube is still sending the Polymer-based version to other browsers - even though from other people's tests it looks like Youtube is capable of sending something that doesn't require the polyfill if it thinks Chrome is on the other end. (This was the state as of a couple years ago, I don't know if there's been further developments since)
    - capitainenemo 1y ago
      That could be accident or malice or a combination of the two.
- jajko 1y ago
  Can't win if competition to whom the web belongs also tries to capture literally whole world in its ad-infested vision of future via its browser. There are tons of ways how to subtly degrade experience, or gain performance for oneself (like IE did back in the days of skipping ending connection as per protocols to gain some speed points). I used to cheer for Google and its approach to customers, employees, and the world we live in. That ship has sailed long time ago, now its another greedy global mega corporation with thin veneer of 'we are good guys' (apple is similar but in a different way).
franky47 1y ago
I’m a diehard Firefox user since day one, but today I updated to the 140.2 iOS build, and it broke my cookie jar, logged me out of most websites, and managed to switch LinkedIn to Spanish..
- throw123xz 1y ago
  > iOS build Chrome, Firefox, Opera, etc, on iOS all use Webkit because of the platform rules. The EU forced them to open up in Europe, but you're not really using Firefox on your iPhone. Just pointing it out as it's not the same as using Firefox on the desktop or Android.
  - chuckadams 1y ago
    It might be using the Safari engine underneath, but the issues they're describing are the sort of thing that would surface with a bad integration like a corrupted profile. Profile management on FF has always been a bit of a crapshoot. Personally speaking, it hasn't bit me in the last few years, but I've probably jinxed it now 8-/
    - throw123xz 1y ago
      On iOS, browsers are more a "Safari with a different UI and some extra features" than "Firefox with a different rendering engine". If they use profiles behind the scenes, it won't be the same old profile system we use on desktop.
ep103 1y ago
I think the primary thing I've learned about open vs closed source products this last decade, is that the difference in marketing is huge. Both Firefox and Chrome are great browsers, end stop. But most articles on HN about Chrome start with glowing praise. And most articles on HN about Firefox start with "What's wrong with FF" and condescention. I'm past the point of thinking that this is actually reflective about the browsers and their organizations. Chrome is actively ending ad block support in its plugins. Its CEO is actively engaging in the political process. Firefox has always had a messy relationship with advertising, in which it generally tries to walk the line between reality and ideology. There are pros and cons to both products, depending on what you care about. The fact that articles on each browser so consistently fall into the same pattern does not seem reflective of the actual products themselves. I think the difference is down to marketing.
- socalgal2 1y ago
  > open vs closed source products Chrome is for all intents and purposes, open source. Yes, there is 0.000001% that's not. It's hard to argue that tiny portion is the difference. > Chrome is actively ending ad block support in its plugins. Chrome has not ended ad blocking - I'm using ublock lite and ads are blocked.
  - hooverd 1y ago
    Just like Android is open source!
    - socalgal2 1y ago
      Is that a fair comparison? There is almost nothing Google adds to Chromium to get Chrome. It's fully usable without the 0.001% that Google adds. Android though, IIUC, it's effectively not usable without Google Play services.
- surgical_fire 1y ago
  > Both Firefox and Chrome are great browser. No, Chrome sucks.
bArray 1y ago
> Rust was developed at Mozilla. Mozilla axed it. In 2020, it laid off the whole team. > As I reported back in 2023, the Servo browser engine is doing well. Early this year, its own figures show strong continued upticks in interest since Igalia took over development. You guessed it – Mozilla also gave Servo the boot in 2020. You don't need to develop a new programming language to develop a decent browser engine. Maybe it would be nice, and maybe it could be better, but do you really have the resources to go off on such a tangent? Clearly the answer was no. > 2020 is the same year Cathay Capital invested $50 million into KaiOStech, saying it would help bring the next billion people online. As The Register reported in 2018, KaiOS is Boot2Gecko, Mozilla's FirefoxOS rebranded. Mozilla killed its own version in 2015. Calling it "FirefoxOS" was a mistake, but the idea wasn't all too bad. The rendering in HTML/CSS was a good idea, Java after all have Java Swing/JavaFX and that worked well, but I wouldn't have forced all of the apps to also be JS. I think it will be the future equivalent of an OS where all apps must be Adobe Flash. The rendering should have all been done in HTML/CSS, with the backend being any language of choice running in a tiny container. I think Mozilla need to make things that do one thing well, and they also need to get better at developing MVPs that test the waters before pouring in years and millions into it.
- catigula 1y ago
  It's moreso that actively burning off your only successful endeavor in uncountable years is a sign of bad, bad management.
- binarymax 1y ago
  You don’t need to but it certainly helped. And the Servo project also produced crates like HTML5ever which filled a huge gap in performant and safe document parsing for both browser and server. I’m very grateful that there are modular and easily usable projects like that, and rust is far easier to use than the complex c++ code and toolchains you’d need.
- johnea 1y ago
  > You don't need to develop a new programming language to develop a decent browser engine. Thank You! Just one additional suggestion: Stop throwing plug-in developers under the bus! p.s. I'm writing this in seamonkey... and still pine for NPAPI 8-(
sprremix 1y ago
> All the functionality attached to Firefox's "Browser tools" sub-menu should be unceremoniously ripped out, banished to the developer's edition. I hope this is some kind of sarcastic take I am not getting. What a weird thing to stand for.
- bauble 1y ago
  It would be insanity. Even the most dedicated developers would switch to Chrome instantly.
- JohnBooty 1y ago
  Well, that saved me a click on the article. This take is insane or a troll.
  - deathanatos 1y ago
    Some of TFA is more grounded. That particular paragraph though… It exemplifies why beneficial change is so hard sometimes. The loudest voice in the room can go "here are the problems", we can all nod along in agreement, and then "and here's what we should do" … and it's just out there. I've seen this happen numerous times — borderline continuously — in politics. Even ealier in the article, they (rightly, IMO) skewer Mozilla for laying off the Rust and Servo teams, but then TFA utterly undercuts its own thesis with, > It shouldn't be trying to capitalize on [projects such as Rust or Servo]. What? What's the point of Rust, or Servo, then, if not to develop a better Firefox?
    - JohnBooty 1y ago
      and it's just out there. Yeah! Marx is the most extreme example of this in world history, probably. His critiques of capitalism are absolutely some of the truest words ever written. They are essential. They should be required reading for the entire human race, even for the most better-dead-than-red capitalist. Embracing capitalism without acknowledging the downsides is just about the most dangerous thing imaginable. But then, Marx's proposed solutions... well, you know. They've never worked out too well. To make the understatement of a lifetime.
dev1ycan 1y ago
A couple years ago (~2018-9 or so) I realized that Firefox had a weird leak, I opened a lot of tabs often (heavy internet user plus dev) and I never really restart my pc unless absolutely necessary because I have too many things at once I'm working on and it's a pain to reopen everything including Windows Explorer instances (now tabs). I talked about this leak and they kept gaslighting me like it didn't exist, Firefox at one point was taking 24 gbs of ram on my pc. (It did) Another issue, Firefox Nighly, I 100% understand that it's an early bird preview and all that, but they would literally brick your browser whenever they wanted you to force to update it... what? I complain and they say "then don't use nighly", like brother, I understand that, I completely understand to use stable for stability, but there is no reason to FORCEFULLY brick a user's browser whenever you release an update, just have a popup and if they WANT TO they restart at the moment if not at the next restart period... and if you REALLY need for some critical issue you can have a flag with the update that forces a bricking but is only used in extremely important scenarios. The amount of mismanagement at Mozilla is incredible really, I was a die hard Firefox user, I remember opening my youtube channel trying to right click on a background and not being able to copy the url/view image with chrome back in the day, that was when I realized that Google would force "its" web standards so I decided to go all in on Firefox, yet now I'm back on a chromium browser because Mozilla has completely destroyed the browser I loved, even worse now with all the weird privacy invasive stuff they've added in. I truly hope ladybird browser is successful.
- RachelF 1y ago
  It still leaks GPU memory on Windows. It's still a great browser, though. A bigger problem is that the web is now a mono-culture of Chrome/Chromium. Many sites don't work 100% on Firefox.
Theodores 1y ago
Until Firefox introduce scoped CSS they are IE6 to me.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
cjpearson 1y ago
I don't think Mozilla has always made the right decisions, but they are in a difficult position, and the anti-Mozilla arguments are typically much more vague and directionless. Some common demands: - Mozilla should develop revenue independent of Google - Mozilla should not monetize Firefox - Mozilla should only focus on Firefox - Mozilla should develop cool research projects - Mozilla should be run like a competitive and professional business - Mozilla should have a salary cap and expect executives to treat it like a passion project Some of these goals are opposite ends of the same slider, so it's not possible to maximize both. Typically, Mozilla seems to pick a middle-ground. For example, my understanding is that while salaries are quite decent, they tend to be below what Apple and Google will offer for similar roles. Maybe it's seen as waffling whenever they shift these sliders, and maybe that's a fair criticism. But nobody else seems to be able to put together a clear and realistic alternative plan. Most of them pick and choose contradictory goals, other plans like Zawinski's are at least clear, but too radical for those who still want revenue to pay developers or to be able to watch Netflix in their browser.
- rightbyte 1y ago
  Both Mozilla and the Wikipedia Foundation seem to have the same problem of doing everything but focusing on their core raison d'être. Like, what is there even to say but constantly complain about that.
  - detaro 1y ago
    Or rather, people disagree with the Foundations on what their purpose should be.
    - rightbyte 1y ago
      Yes but for rethorical reasons I pretend to not know what you mean. That would validify their claims.
    - kristjank 1y ago
      If the turtle-saving foundation I donate to has a windfall, I would expect it to save more turtles, not to instead also focus on feeding hotdogs to hungry Somali children. This does not mean that feeding hotdogs to hungry Somali children is wrong, it is an even more important goal than saving the turtles, but somewhere in the process, there pillaged a decision maker that misinterpreted (acceptable) or ignored (unacceptable) the intentions of the benefactors.
throw939394 1y ago
Firefox code is not fine. It is 25 years old code, with many stuff bolted on top (multithreading). It does not even have a proper security sandboxing for renderer! This codebase was underfunded for a very long time! And all rewrites and major refactorings were cancelled! Nobody embeds Gecko engine anymore. There are good reasons for that!
- IlikeKitties 1y ago
  Fact! Firefox Security is atrociously behind modern standards and Firefox can only safely be used as a throwaway browser with additional external sand boxing.
  - BenjiWiebe 1y ago
    However, with some quick googling it looks like (in the last couple years anyways) Firefox is just as unsafe to use as Chrome. Looks like Chrome actually had the most recent RCE only requiring someone to click a link.
    - IlikeKitties 1y ago
      Both are giant C++ codebases executing random code of the internet. Of course they are both security nightmares. But Chrome has significant hardening that Firefox lacks [0]. Also, most recent CVE is a terrible metric. [0] https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.html https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.ht...
      - BenjiWiebe 1y ago
        I know, but I was trying to find vulnerabilities that could meaningfully hurt me, and imperfect hardening that hasn't yet/knowingly been exploited isn't super important to me. I don't have government-funded security researchers out to get me. I hope.
    - homebrewer 1y ago
      How much of that is due to the difference in the amount of attention paid to each code base, do you reckon? If you're a security researcher, spending months of work on a browser with market share of more than 90% makes a lot more sense than on a browser with a market share of 2%, unless you're going after a specific individual who you know for sure uses that specific browser.
Animats 1y ago
Can they get Brendan Eich back?
- funnyflywheel 1y ago
  I find that having Brendan Eich back in charge of Mozilla would be very unlikely for two reasons: - He’s already built a modestly successful competitor in Brave, so there might not be much incentive for him to jump ship. - It’s possible that bringing him back may risk the ire of the LGBTQ+ community. (His comments against same-sex marriage led to his resignation as CEO of Mozilla back in 2014.) However, this is just my speculation.
GuB-42 1y ago
> In mid-2024, he pointed out its "Original Sin" of adopting digital rights management. I disagree on that one. Maybe it could have been an option 15-20 years ago, when Firefox was a significant force. But now, if it didn't have DRM, platforms that use DRM would just tell people to use another browser, or a specialized app. And people who are not activists would just switch to "the browser that runs $service", and then you give free reign to whoever controls these browsers, including making the DRM more restrictive and more invading. DRM is an addon, it lets you do thing that you can't do without (i.e. watching protected content), but it won't affect non-DRM content. You can turn it off if you want, you just won't be able to watch Netflix (or whatever), making it a worse user experience. If you refuse to support DRM (and therefore denying your users of some content), hoping that it will discourage adoption of DRM by platforms, you have to keep your users captive so that they won't just switch. And considering that Firefox doesn't rely on lock-in: they don't have the means to do so, and it is against the spirit in the first place, they have to offset that by offering something else. And unfortunately, they don't have much to offer besides ideology. The original sin, if we can call it that, is that Firefox technically lagged behind Chrome: slower, more bugs, less secure,... Having to accept DRM, as well as anything Google decided was standard is a consequence of that. That's why I had high hopes with Servo. It had the potential to make Firefox a "better browser", giving them some weight when deciding not to support some anti-feature, but they lost it. They also lost an opportunity on mobile by not supporting extensions for too long, and generally, for not being taken seriously. Why did it take them so long to support DNS-over-HTTPS for instance? Now, they have an opportunity regarding ad-blocking, I don't know how they are going to waste that one, but knowing them, they are probably going to manage it.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
  The original sin, if we can call it that, is that Firefox technically lagged behind Chrome: slower, more bugs, less secure I only want to comment on the more bugs component because for a time it seemed like all of the sites least likely to work in Firefox were Google run. Google was choosing to exclusively code to Chrome’s latest standard. When people cannot run YouTube, Gmail, whatever, but Chrome can, not surprising when users flee.
somanyphotons 1y ago
The EU should fork firefox and develop it as a public benefit
- MrDresden 1y ago
  I thoroughly disagree. The EU and it's many organizations, does not know how to operate a long running software development project. What the union should do instead is to create a funding structure that had as it's mission to identify and financially support groups that develop open source software which is critical to both the people and companies that are based in the EU. Make it a requirement that the software be accessible, free and open source.
- throw_m239339 1y ago
  > The EU should fork firefox and develop it as a public benefit All these mega-rich US tech entrepreneurs can finance Firefox development. They have all the capital. The EU isn't a charity.
  - somanyphotons 1y ago
    The EU has different strategic interests from the mega-rich US tech companies
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - homebrewer 1y ago
    They're already doing that, and look where we are as the result.
JadoJodo 1y ago
I'm a bit of a tinkerer with software and will occasionally "wander" over the fence to see if it really is greener on the other side; I always come back to Firefox. I've tried: Brave: love the mission/execution, don't care for Chrome Arc: interesting idea, but ultimately removed too much of the things I need in exchange for things I might use, but don't need Orion: Firefox extensions (even on iOS!) + native performance? Love it, but it crashes all the time and the extensions' compatibility comes and goes Safari: I don't mind paying for software, but paying for extensions that will probably disappear in 6 months is a pass I've recently settled on the Zen Firefox flavor: It brings a lot of what Arc, custom Firefox themes aim for in a stable package, while maintaining full compatibility with all the Firefox extensions I use. The only issue I still experience is the occasional "this site only works on Chrome".
- fsflover 1y ago
  > The only issue I still experience is the occasional "this site only works on Chrome". Perhaps you should name and shame.
  - atlasunshrugged 1y ago
    Riverside.fm only works on Edge/Chrome (or at least as of June 2025) which is really annoying
    - OkayPhysicist 1y ago
      Does it actually not work with Firefox, or is it just checking the User-Agent and not even trying? Snapchat's web view is/was doing that last I checked (I have since permanently switched to serving Chrome's UA everywhere)
      - atlasunshrugged 1y ago
        You know, I didn't actually try after it flagged it wouldn't work. Will give it a shot the next time it comes up
IlikeKitties 1y ago
People here should be much more angry at the collection of parasites running Mozilla, draining the foundation of money until Firefox finally dies with Mozilla going down right after them. They are extracting millions while consistently fucking up any hopes of a future for Firefox. Fuck Mozilla, Fuck those Parasites and fuck all the Bootlickers here making excuses for them.
- itsafarqueue 1y ago
  This. Mozilla has long appeared to exist as little more than a vehicle to enrich management, with a vestigial browser project attached to it. Google did its job very, very well here.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
glenstein 1y ago
I do want to applaud the author for something that, on the internet, is one of the most difficult things, namely being able to think two things at the same time: >Firefox is in a bit of a mess – but, seriously, not such a bad mess. You're still better off with it – or one of its forks, because this is FOSS – than pretty much any of the alternatives. Some of the punches landed here, e.g. axing Servo, are pretty devastating. Others, "why not buy an adblocker" (huh? they allow it via extensions which has been a longstanding tradition in the browser space), seem like non sequiturs. But the point remains: >Like we said, don't blame the app. You're still better off with Firefox or a fork such as Waterfox. Chrome even snoops on you when in incognito mode, and as we warned you, Google removed the APIs ad-blocker extensions used. You still get better ad-blocking in Firefox. Yes, exactly! It's a Two Things Can Be True situation.
93po 1y ago
been a firefox diehard for over a decade. moved to librewolf recently because the amount of ad-infested settings and "oopsie" default reversions to my settings that expose me yet again to ads and i yet again have to turn it off is just gross to me. i shouldnt have to fight against software and triple check my settings to not see mind polluting ads or have my information sold/shared
Henchman21 1y ago
All my hopes are with Ladybird now.
- leakycap 1y ago
  This could be a line in a post apocalyptic movie There are also Arc & Orion to look forward to as they mature.
- fsflover 1y ago
  Looks like xkcd should remake their comics replacing operating systems with browsers and GNU/Hurd with Ladybird, https://explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1508:_Operating_Systems https://explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1508:_Operating_Syste...
jhoechtl 1y ago
That reads dangerously close to an obituary.
Macha 1y ago
> We can point at what we'd like to see, sure. Did you know there's already a special developer's edition? No web designer is building on Firefox first any more. We're lucky if they even test on it. All the functionality attached to Firefox's "Browser tools" sub-menu should be unceremoniously ripped out, banished to the developer's edition. If they're still developing the dev tools (which I'd argue they need to if they want any companies to support the browser), then what's there to gain by removing it from the regular build? I don't get it.
blibble 1y ago
like most successful, supposedly focused non-profits, eventually the parasitical professional management class infiltrate it they do whatever is needed to increase their own compensation, eventually killing the host, at which point they move on the nominet drama a few years back ([1]) is one of the few cases where they were forcibly removed (due to its unique structure) [1]: https://openuk.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/The-Stack_Opening-up-Nominet.pdf https://openuk.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/The-Stack_Openi...
coffeecoders 1y ago
After each Firefox install, I do: - Right click context menu cleanup - I don't need Inspect Accessibility Properties, Email image, Set image as desktop background etc. - Disable telemetry - Minimal theme - Clean up search engines - Disable pocket, top sites, ads, what's new, search suggest - Disable tab groups, container, hover preview - Disable recommended extensions These can all be done through config or userChrome.css. After that, I install three extensions - uBlock, skip redirect, I don't care about cookies. I have never cared about signing into browser or syncing bookmarks. All I want is a minimal browser that doesn't bother me on each run.
tiberious726 1y ago
Firefox is not fine. If you think it is, please tell me how to disable BASIC http auth in it. (This is a serious problem, as it will send passwords unencrypted over a non SSL connection, and my users have been trained to type their sso password into every box they see (I know.... Not my doing)).
- homebrewer 1y ago
  about:config → network.http.basic_http_auth.enabled = false
g42gregory 1y ago
One of the most important open source projects in the world did not have a CEO who could read code since 2014? I am not surprised they are in trouble.
- leakycap 1y ago
  I worked for a huge healthcare organization and the CEO was not a doctor, nor was she even familiar with the field before leading the organization. CEOs are not "hands on the ground" in a functioning organization. When I hear things like this, it makes me wonder what CEO you have worked with and if they subscribed to the Jimmy Carter method of management or something. "No, no, let me diff the source on that, I am the CEO after all..."
delcaran 1y ago
The thing that keeps me on Firefox/Librewolf is the Holy Trinity of features: - Profiles (with selector in-browser since 139 AFAIR) - Container tabs - Temporary containers When some of the other browsers will have all these features, maybe I'll make the switch.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
thunkshift1 1y ago
same for intel
tiahura 1y ago
Mitchell Baker ran it into the ground and made a fortune doing so. Almost to the point that one might wonder if there may have been some sort of undisclosed quid pro quo with Google.
jajuuka 1y ago
Mozilla and Firefox is a great example of having too many advocates and not enough engineers. It's easy to find plenty of people committed to spreading the good word of Firefox or willing to answer Reddit threads with "just use Firefox". But there just isn't enough engineering effort to keep up with Chrome or Chromium.
npc_anon 1y ago
The article praises Jamie Zawinksi, for calling out Mozilla on its failings. My take is that listening to him is the quickest way to irrelevance. He calls out Mozilla for accepting crypto donations, so they stop it. Now they get less donations but there's no actual reduction in harm. Crypto still exists and has only grown. He calls out Mozilla for digging into AI. As a very generic anti-AI take. According to him, Mozilla should not invest in mitigating the risks of Big Tech AI, it should simply not play at all. And this way magically AI harm will be eliminated. He calls out the "original sin", DRM video. People that invest hundreds of millions into making a movie, aren't going to allow you to "right-click, save" on paid content. There's nothing morally wrong with paid content. I could go on but all of these takes are performative and useless. If you want to make the internet a better place you need to engage with the real world and not maneuver yourself into a tiny corner of irrelevance where you self-congratulate your theoretical moral purity to your 3 Mastodon friends that are equally obnoxious and out of touch.
creatonez 1y ago
The suggestion for browsers to integrate an ad blocker always worries me. uBlock Origin benefits from being shielded from monetary incentives, as they don't even allow small donations to the maintainers. That being said, Firefox frequently endorses the existing ecosystem of ad blockers in their featured extensions. They even featured AdNauseum, an ad blocker that attempts to DoS ad servers by sending fake clicks on every single ad. Google on the other hand labelled it malware and swiftly took it down. So right now, Mozilla is not at all an the enemy of arbitrary web content blocking.
pessimizer 1y ago
This entire thread seems like generative AI. Nobody normal thinks Mozilla is doing fine, or behaving rationally. Nobody thinks they've made any good decisions for a long time, but they see that the decisions they've made coincidentally benefit the source of 90% of their revenue, one of the most powerful corporations on the planet. This article is actually very complimentary. They haven't managed to totally destroy the browser itself yet. Some people working there must still love it. Wild that this thread got sunk with almost as many comments as upvotes. It's almost like we think that flooding an article with comments gets it pushed off the front page.

333 points by LorenDB 1y ago

Great article, i missed the original that spawned this article: https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/17/opinion_column_firefox/ https://www.theregister.com/2025/06/17/opinion_column_firefo... I've been done with firefox for many years. Librewolf, firefox fork, is the way to go; available on flathub. Obviously Brave still being main browser. Mozilla went wrong long ago. They publicly went political and followed through with the firings. They have blogs from the ceo straight up calling for political censorship. Even more odd, it was mostly just US politics which stands out to non-americans. They are focused on everything except the browser and so it was inevitable to decline.

Bender 1y ago
I tried librewolf and it made all the exact same calls out that Firefox did on shutdown. Now I just disable the network before killing Firefox and then run bleachbit. I also mount some directories as tmpfs. What are the benefits of librewolf over Firefox? I could not find any. AFAIK its still just Firefox under the hood.
- karambanoonoo 1y ago
  What calls?
  - Bender 1y ago
    All the same non user initiated calls to Mozilla and other endpoints. Run tcpdump to see them. (both TCP and UDP now) I run a command before I close internet applications and all outbound connections are logged in dmesg via netfilter. Be sure to also log all DNS queries on your firewall.
GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
> They have blogs from the ceo straight up calling for political censorship. got any links?
- zamadatix 1y ago
  Not GP but their mention brings to memory these HN discussion I had read years ago and the comments probably already have more than this thread will discuss: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29884342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29884342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25690941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25690941 It looks like the blog post was taken down several months later, so I had to pull this copy to see what it was https://web.archive.org/web/20210108192114/https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210108192114/https://blog.mozi...
  - happymellon 1y ago
    Doesn't look like censorship at all. > Transparency on advertisers Sounds good. > Transparency on "algorithms" Also sounds good. > Improve algorithms to highlight facts over fiction Considering he isn't calling for anyone to be censored, only promote facts, I don't see much issue.
    - zamadatix 1y ago
      She builds off of "requires more than just the temporary silencing or permanent removal of bad actors from social media platforms" with "Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation". Whether deplatforming or "amplifying factual voices over disinformation" are seen as a good thing, they are censorship. She also mixes some good ideas in that (particularly platform algorithm transparency) of course.
      - saubeidl 1y ago
        Is ad-blocking censorship? What about spam filters?

GeekyBear 1y ago

Compared to the people running Chrome, the people running Firefox are merely annoying. My main issue with the people running Mozilla is that they have wasted vast sums of money on executive salaries and their half baked notions of new initiatives the company should take up (and later abandon) that don't involve building web browsers, email clients, or supporting development tools.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
93po 1y ago
i wish firefox would have hoarded away their billions of dollars they've received and simply run as a lean mission-oriented company for the next 20 years from those funds. get rid of expensive execs and middle managers and sales and whatever else. have passionate, well-paid developers and open source advocates and nothing else. both make the best possible open source software, and also use your influence and resources to make the pressure from companies like google make the web less shitty
dimal 1y ago
All that money wasted is the whole point of Mozilla. It’s been captured by Google. The role of Mozilla is to provide a fig leaf of “competition” while using Google money to pay executives who fulfill that duty. Anything that is successful or innovative, like Rust, Servo, or FakeSpot need to be jettisoned because they are a distraction from Mozilla’s true mission.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
const_cast 1y ago
> My main issue with the people running Mozilla is that they have wasted vast sums of money on executive salaries and their half baked notions of new initiatives the company should take up (and later abandon) that don't involve building web browsers, email clients, or supporting development tools. Your main issue is in direct contradiction to most people's issue with Firefox - it relies on Chrome for revenue. They repeatedly try other revenue streams and people hate them for that too. It's a lose-lose, because, for some reason, people hate Mozilla almost viscerally. They're held to such a frankly insane standard as compared to Chrome. I mean, Chrome shits on users in every way you could possibly imagine and nobody seems to care. Chrome is married to Google and nobody complains. But Firefox is less married to Google and it's a 100x bigger problem. How? What's the formula here?

ZeroGravitas 1y ago

Weird mix of complaints, attacking Mozilla both from the ultra purity of non-profit web standards side via JWZ while simultaneously complaining they don't run it like a business.

IAmBroom 1y ago
It's almost as if cjpearson's unreasonable criticism atop this thread, "...the anti-Mozilla arguments are typically much more vague and directionless..." ... wasn't completely unreasonable.

potato-peeler 1y ago

I have a far more different gripe than this. Firefox seems to needlessly introduce features I barely need. Check their new release, 140.0 They introduced a toggle in the address bar to show the window title. Who tf is asking for this? This browser just needs to be as simple as it can, without all this feature bloat.

SoftTalker 1y ago
IDK, a lot of people claim to need to be able to manage several hundred of open tabs.
- Melonai 1y ago
  I can confirm this use case does exist. My boyfriend (despite my constant disapproval) uses his tabs as essentially a bookmark manager and has around 100+ tabs open at any single time. His tab bar is composed of only barely recognizable icons, but he still manages to find things (more or less). I can not convince him to use tab groups, bookmarks, or sidebar tabs... :)
  - saidinesh5 1y ago
    Yeah but the solution to that has been Treestyle tab for ages... It's just annoying that firefox took away the original tree style tab's ability to hide the main tab bar...
    - mook 1y ago
      Luckily in the mentioned 140 you can now configure Firefox to show tabs in the sidebar, and then actually use the Tree Style Tabs sidebar instead, not showing the native tabs at all.
      - masfuerte 1y ago
        The built-in vertical tabs are awful. Hit F11 for full-screen and all of the chrome disappears except for the vertical tabs. Who would want that? I'll try Tree Style instead.

ChrisArchitect 1y ago

Related from last month: Firefox is dead to me – and I'm not the only one who is fed up https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44298286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44298286

dehrmann 1y ago

> Mozilla's leadership is directionless and flailing because it's never had to do, or be, anything else. It's never needed to know how to make a profit, because it never had to make a profit. It's no wonder it has no real direction or vision or clue: it never needed them. It's role-playing being a business.

saubeidl 1y ago
The "real" fix would be for Mozilla to become an actual proper non-profit entity. Maybe the EU can buy it and maintain the browser as a critical piece of infrastructure, the same way roads etc are.
- makeitdouble 1y ago
  > the same way roads etc are Roads are also a model of corruption and inefficiency, fully captured by private actors (in Europe, Vinci etc). And I think there's no way around it past some size, but that might not be the direction we wish for Firefox.
  - mminer237 1y ago
    In the US, road construction is actually pretty competitive. I'm sure there's some corruption, but I think it's done pretty well overall.
    - timschmidt 1y ago
      The following study lists the U.S. as having "moderate to high corruption" in road construction industries: https://www.ijsr.net/getabstract.php?paperid=SR25213001321 https://www.ijsr.net/getabstract.php?paperid=SR25213001321
      - rtkwe 1y ago
        The abstract out rights says it's just using a PPP adjusted price vs quality measurement not actually studying real measurable corruption just their arms length proxy measurement. All that really shows is the US gets crappier product for the 'same' money (PPP comparisons are really squishy).

ww520 1y ago

I don't know what's going on in Mozilla. Just today on my security camera NVR, Firefox pops up a dialog in the notification area at the lower right screen of Windows 11, showing an ad for its vertical tab feature, urging me to try it out. The thing is Firefox is rarely used on the NVR and the browser is not running. The only program running is the camera video app (the popup of course obscured the video window). It must be done by the background Firefox Update process. This is a brazen abuse of the notification area that even Microsoft hasn't tried yet.

paulryanrogers 1y ago
> This is a brazen abuse of the notification area that even Microsoft hasn't tried yet. Microsoft has advertised OneDrive and other products with scare prompts in those toast notifications.
- tanjtanjtanj 1y ago
  Heck, the other week I got an ad telling me “Doom: The Dark Ages” had been released and that it is “thrilling” in the toast area. This despite me never having used the Xbox or windows gaming apps and actually having uninstalled them only for an update to decide it should reinstalled
MintPaw 1y ago
I got this on all my automated test machines today too. It messes up my screenshots. I get the feeling Firefox is going to lose a lot of good will today.

perryizgr8 1y ago

Firefox performance is really bad in google sites like meet, calendar, docs, youtube. I wonder why they are not working on improving the situation. Everything else is already perfect, just iron out these few issues and be the undisputed leader.

eptcyka 1y ago
Didn’t youtube sabotage firefox performance deliberately?
- knowitnone 1y ago
  Google sabotage firefox performance deliberately
- Izkata 1y ago
  Originally no, and nowadays it seems like it's a result of that tech debt: Youtube did a frontend rewrite using an early spec of web components, that only Chrome ever fully implemented, and they used Polymer to polyfill other browsers with the idea that they'd implement the spec later and get a performance boost. But the spec changed, so they never did, and Youtube is still sending the Polymer-based version to other browsers - even though from other people's tests it looks like Youtube is capable of sending something that doesn't require the polyfill if it thinks Chrome is on the other end. (This was the state as of a couple years ago, I don't know if there's been further developments since)
  - capitainenemo 1y ago
    That could be accident or malice or a combination of the two.
jajko 1y ago
Can't win if competition to whom the web belongs also tries to capture literally whole world in its ad-infested vision of future via its browser. There are tons of ways how to subtly degrade experience, or gain performance for oneself (like IE did back in the days of skipping ending connection as per protocols to gain some speed points). I used to cheer for Google and its approach to customers, employees, and the world we live in. That ship has sailed long time ago, now its another greedy global mega corporation with thin veneer of 'we are good guys' (apple is similar but in a different way).

franky47 1y ago

I’m a diehard Firefox user since day one, but today I updated to the 140.2 iOS build, and it broke my cookie jar, logged me out of most websites, and managed to switch LinkedIn to Spanish..

throw123xz 1y ago
> iOS build Chrome, Firefox, Opera, etc, on iOS all use Webkit because of the platform rules. The EU forced them to open up in Europe, but you're not really using Firefox on your iPhone. Just pointing it out as it's not the same as using Firefox on the desktop or Android.
- chuckadams 1y ago
  It might be using the Safari engine underneath, but the issues they're describing are the sort of thing that would surface with a bad integration like a corrupted profile. Profile management on FF has always been a bit of a crapshoot. Personally speaking, it hasn't bit me in the last few years, but I've probably jinxed it now 8-/
  - throw123xz 1y ago
    On iOS, browsers are more a "Safari with a different UI and some extra features" than "Firefox with a different rendering engine". If they use profiles behind the scenes, it won't be the same old profile system we use on desktop.

ep103 1y ago

I think the primary thing I've learned about open vs closed source products this last decade, is that the difference in marketing is huge. Both Firefox and Chrome are great browsers, end stop. But most articles on HN about Chrome start with glowing praise. And most articles on HN about Firefox start with "What's wrong with FF" and condescention. I'm past the point of thinking that this is actually reflective about the browsers and their organizations. Chrome is actively ending ad block support in its plugins. Its CEO is actively engaging in the political process. Firefox has always had a messy relationship with advertising, in which it generally tries to walk the line between reality and ideology. There are pros and cons to both products, depending on what you care about. The fact that articles on each browser so consistently fall into the same pattern does not seem reflective of the actual products themselves. I think the difference is down to marketing.

socalgal2 1y ago
> open vs closed source products Chrome is for all intents and purposes, open source. Yes, there is 0.000001% that's not. It's hard to argue that tiny portion is the difference. > Chrome is actively ending ad block support in its plugins. Chrome has not ended ad blocking - I'm using ublock lite and ads are blocked.
- hooverd 1y ago
  Just like Android is open source!
  - socalgal2 1y ago
    Is that a fair comparison? There is almost nothing Google adds to Chromium to get Chrome. It's fully usable without the 0.001% that Google adds. Android though, IIUC, it's effectively not usable without Google Play services.
surgical_fire 1y ago
> Both Firefox and Chrome are great browser. No, Chrome sucks.

bArray 1y ago

> Rust was developed at Mozilla. Mozilla axed it. In 2020, it laid off the whole team. > As I reported back in 2023, the Servo browser engine is doing well. Early this year, its own figures show strong continued upticks in interest since Igalia took over development. You guessed it – Mozilla also gave Servo the boot in 2020. You don't need to develop a new programming language to develop a decent browser engine. Maybe it would be nice, and maybe it could be better, but do you really have the resources to go off on such a tangent? Clearly the answer was no. > 2020 is the same year Cathay Capital invested $50 million into KaiOStech, saying it would help bring the next billion people online. As The Register reported in 2018, KaiOS is Boot2Gecko, Mozilla's FirefoxOS rebranded. Mozilla killed its own version in 2015. Calling it "FirefoxOS" was a mistake, but the idea wasn't all too bad. The rendering in HTML/CSS was a good idea, Java after all have Java Swing/JavaFX and that worked well, but I wouldn't have forced all of the apps to also be JS. I think it will be the future equivalent of an OS where all apps must be Adobe Flash. The rendering should have all been done in HTML/CSS, with the backend being any language of choice running in a tiny container. I think Mozilla need to make things that do one thing well, and they also need to get better at developing MVPs that test the waters before pouring in years and millions into it.

catigula 1y ago
It's moreso that actively burning off your only successful endeavor in uncountable years is a sign of bad, bad management.
binarymax 1y ago
You don’t need to but it certainly helped. And the Servo project also produced crates like HTML5ever which filled a huge gap in performant and safe document parsing for both browser and server. I’m very grateful that there are modular and easily usable projects like that, and rust is far easier to use than the complex c++ code and toolchains you’d need.
johnea 1y ago
> You don't need to develop a new programming language to develop a decent browser engine. Thank You! Just one additional suggestion: Stop throwing plug-in developers under the bus! p.s. I'm writing this in seamonkey... and still pine for NPAPI 8-(

sprremix 1y ago

> All the functionality attached to Firefox's "Browser tools" sub-menu should be unceremoniously ripped out, banished to the developer's edition. I hope this is some kind of sarcastic take I am not getting. What a weird thing to stand for.

bauble 1y ago
It would be insanity. Even the most dedicated developers would switch to Chrome instantly.
JohnBooty 1y ago
Well, that saved me a click on the article. This take is insane or a troll.
- deathanatos 1y ago
  Some of TFA is more grounded. That particular paragraph though… It exemplifies why beneficial change is so hard sometimes. The loudest voice in the room can go "here are the problems", we can all nod along in agreement, and then "and here's what we should do" … and it's just out there. I've seen this happen numerous times — borderline continuously — in politics. Even ealier in the article, they (rightly, IMO) skewer Mozilla for laying off the Rust and Servo teams, but then TFA utterly undercuts its own thesis with, > It shouldn't be trying to capitalize on [projects such as Rust or Servo]. What? What's the point of Rust, or Servo, then, if not to develop a better Firefox?
  - JohnBooty 1y ago
    and it's just out there. Yeah! Marx is the most extreme example of this in world history, probably. His critiques of capitalism are absolutely some of the truest words ever written. They are essential. They should be required reading for the entire human race, even for the most better-dead-than-red capitalist. Embracing capitalism without acknowledging the downsides is just about the most dangerous thing imaginable. But then, Marx's proposed solutions... well, you know. They've never worked out too well. To make the understatement of a lifetime.

dev1ycan 1y ago

A couple years ago (~2018-9 or so) I realized that Firefox had a weird leak, I opened a lot of tabs often (heavy internet user plus dev) and I never really restart my pc unless absolutely necessary because I have too many things at once I'm working on and it's a pain to reopen everything including Windows Explorer instances (now tabs). I talked about this leak and they kept gaslighting me like it didn't exist, Firefox at one point was taking 24 gbs of ram on my pc. (It did) Another issue, Firefox Nighly, I 100% understand that it's an early bird preview and all that, but they would literally brick your browser whenever they wanted you to force to update it... what? I complain and they say "then don't use nighly", like brother, I understand that, I completely understand to use stable for stability, but there is no reason to FORCEFULLY brick a user's browser whenever you release an update, just have a popup and if they WANT TO they restart at the moment if not at the next restart period... and if you REALLY need for some critical issue you can have a flag with the update that forces a bricking but is only used in extremely important scenarios. The amount of mismanagement at Mozilla is incredible really, I was a die hard Firefox user, I remember opening my youtube channel trying to right click on a background and not being able to copy the url/view image with chrome back in the day, that was when I realized that Google would force "its" web standards so I decided to go all in on Firefox, yet now I'm back on a chromium browser because Mozilla has completely destroyed the browser I loved, even worse now with all the weird privacy invasive stuff they've added in. I truly hope ladybird browser is successful.

RachelF 1y ago
It still leaks GPU memory on Windows. It's still a great browser, though. A bigger problem is that the web is now a mono-culture of Chrome/Chromium. Many sites don't work 100% on Firefox.

Theodores 1y ago

Until Firefox introduce scoped CSS they are IE6 to me.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

cjpearson 1y ago

I don't think Mozilla has always made the right decisions, but they are in a difficult position, and the anti-Mozilla arguments are typically much more vague and directionless. Some common demands: - Mozilla should develop revenue independent of Google - Mozilla should not monetize Firefox - Mozilla should only focus on Firefox - Mozilla should develop cool research projects - Mozilla should be run like a competitive and professional business - Mozilla should have a salary cap and expect executives to treat it like a passion project Some of these goals are opposite ends of the same slider, so it's not possible to maximize both. Typically, Mozilla seems to pick a middle-ground. For example, my understanding is that while salaries are quite decent, they tend to be below what Apple and Google will offer for similar roles. Maybe it's seen as waffling whenever they shift these sliders, and maybe that's a fair criticism. But nobody else seems to be able to put together a clear and realistic alternative plan. Most of them pick and choose contradictory goals, other plans like Zawinski's are at least clear, but too radical for those who still want revenue to pay developers or to be able to watch Netflix in their browser.

rightbyte 1y ago
Both Mozilla and the Wikipedia Foundation seem to have the same problem of doing everything but focusing on their core raison d'être. Like, what is there even to say but constantly complain about that.
- detaro 1y ago
  Or rather, people disagree with the Foundations on what their purpose should be.
  - rightbyte 1y ago
    Yes but for rethorical reasons I pretend to not know what you mean. That would validify their claims.
  - kristjank 1y ago
    If the turtle-saving foundation I donate to has a windfall, I would expect it to save more turtles, not to instead also focus on feeding hotdogs to hungry Somali children. This does not mean that feeding hotdogs to hungry Somali children is wrong, it is an even more important goal than saving the turtles, but somewhere in the process, there pillaged a decision maker that misinterpreted (acceptable) or ignored (unacceptable) the intentions of the benefactors.

throw939394 1y ago

Firefox code is not fine. It is 25 years old code, with many stuff bolted on top (multithreading). It does not even have a proper security sandboxing for renderer! This codebase was underfunded for a very long time! And all rewrites and major refactorings were cancelled! Nobody embeds Gecko engine anymore. There are good reasons for that!

IlikeKitties 1y ago
Fact! Firefox Security is atrociously behind modern standards and Firefox can only safely be used as a throwaway browser with additional external sand boxing.
- BenjiWiebe 1y ago
  However, with some quick googling it looks like (in the last couple years anyways) Firefox is just as unsafe to use as Chrome. Looks like Chrome actually had the most recent RCE only requiring someone to click a link.
  - IlikeKitties 1y ago
    Both are giant C++ codebases executing random code of the internet. Of course they are both security nightmares. But Chrome has significant hardening that Firefox lacks [0]. Also, most recent CVE is a terrible metric. [0] https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.html https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.ht...
    - BenjiWiebe 1y ago
      I know, but I was trying to find vulnerabilities that could meaningfully hurt me, and imperfect hardening that hasn't yet/knowingly been exploited isn't super important to me. I don't have government-funded security researchers out to get me. I hope.
  - homebrewer 1y ago
    How much of that is due to the difference in the amount of attention paid to each code base, do you reckon? If you're a security researcher, spending months of work on a browser with market share of more than 90% makes a lot more sense than on a browser with a market share of 2%, unless you're going after a specific individual who you know for sure uses that specific browser.

Animats 1y ago

Can they get Brendan Eich back?

funnyflywheel 1y ago
I find that having Brendan Eich back in charge of Mozilla would be very unlikely for two reasons: - He’s already built a modestly successful competitor in Brave, so there might not be much incentive for him to jump ship. - It’s possible that bringing him back may risk the ire of the LGBTQ+ community. (His comments against same-sex marriage led to his resignation as CEO of Mozilla back in 2014.) However, this is just my speculation.

GuB-42 1y ago

> In mid-2024, he pointed out its "Original Sin" of adopting digital rights management. I disagree on that one. Maybe it could have been an option 15-20 years ago, when Firefox was a significant force. But now, if it didn't have DRM, platforms that use DRM would just tell people to use another browser, or a specialized app. And people who are not activists would just switch to "the browser that runs $service", and then you give free reign to whoever controls these browsers, including making the DRM more restrictive and more invading. DRM is an addon, it lets you do thing that you can't do without (i.e. watching protected content), but it won't affect non-DRM content. You can turn it off if you want, you just won't be able to watch Netflix (or whatever), making it a worse user experience. If you refuse to support DRM (and therefore denying your users of some content), hoping that it will discourage adoption of DRM by platforms, you have to keep your users captive so that they won't just switch. And considering that Firefox doesn't rely on lock-in: they don't have the means to do so, and it is against the spirit in the first place, they have to offset that by offering something else. And unfortunately, they don't have much to offer besides ideology. The original sin, if we can call it that, is that Firefox technically lagged behind Chrome: slower, more bugs, less secure,... Having to accept DRM, as well as anything Google decided was standard is a consequence of that. That's why I had high hopes with Servo. It had the potential to make Firefox a "better browser", giving them some weight when deciding not to support some anti-feature, but they lost it. They also lost an opportunity on mobile by not supporting extensions for too long, and generally, for not being taken seriously. Why did it take them so long to support DNS-over-HTTPS for instance? Now, they have an opportunity regarding ad-blocking, I don't know how they are going to waste that one, but knowing them, they are probably going to manage it.

0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
The original sin, if we can call it that, is that Firefox technically lagged behind Chrome: slower, more bugs, less secure I only want to comment on the more bugs component because for a time it seemed like all of the sites least likely to work in Firefox were Google run. Google was choosing to exclusively code to Chrome’s latest standard. When people cannot run YouTube, Gmail, whatever, but Chrome can, not surprising when users flee.

somanyphotons 1y ago

The EU should fork firefox and develop it as a public benefit

MrDresden 1y ago
I thoroughly disagree. The EU and it's many organizations, does not know how to operate a long running software development project. What the union should do instead is to create a funding structure that had as it's mission to identify and financially support groups that develop open source software which is critical to both the people and companies that are based in the EU. Make it a requirement that the software be accessible, free and open source.
throw_m239339 1y ago
> The EU should fork firefox and develop it as a public benefit All these mega-rich US tech entrepreneurs can finance Firefox development. They have all the capital. The EU isn't a charity.
- somanyphotons 1y ago
  The EU has different strategic interests from the mega-rich US tech companies
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- homebrewer 1y ago
  They're already doing that, and look where we are as the result.

JadoJodo 1y ago

I'm a bit of a tinkerer with software and will occasionally "wander" over the fence to see if it really is greener on the other side; I always come back to Firefox. I've tried: Brave: love the mission/execution, don't care for Chrome Arc: interesting idea, but ultimately removed too much of the things I need in exchange for things I might use, but don't need Orion: Firefox extensions (even on iOS!) + native performance? Love it, but it crashes all the time and the extensions' compatibility comes and goes Safari: I don't mind paying for software, but paying for extensions that will probably disappear in 6 months is a pass I've recently settled on the Zen Firefox flavor: It brings a lot of what Arc, custom Firefox themes aim for in a stable package, while maintaining full compatibility with all the Firefox extensions I use. The only issue I still experience is the occasional "this site only works on Chrome".

fsflover 1y ago
> The only issue I still experience is the occasional "this site only works on Chrome". Perhaps you should name and shame.
- atlasunshrugged 1y ago
  Riverside.fm only works on Edge/Chrome (or at least as of June 2025) which is really annoying
  - OkayPhysicist 1y ago
    Does it actually not work with Firefox, or is it just checking the User-Agent and not even trying? Snapchat's web view is/was doing that last I checked (I have since permanently switched to serving Chrome's UA everywhere)
    - atlasunshrugged 1y ago
      You know, I didn't actually try after it flagged it wouldn't work. Will give it a shot the next time it comes up

IlikeKitties 1y ago

People here should be much more angry at the collection of parasites running Mozilla, draining the foundation of money until Firefox finally dies with Mozilla going down right after them. They are extracting millions while consistently fucking up any hopes of a future for Firefox. Fuck Mozilla, Fuck those Parasites and fuck all the Bootlickers here making excuses for them.

itsafarqueue 1y ago
This. Mozilla has long appeared to exist as little more than a vehicle to enrich management, with a vestigial browser project attached to it. Google did its job very, very well here.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

glenstein 1y ago

I do want to applaud the author for something that, on the internet, is one of the most difficult things, namely being able to think two things at the same time: >Firefox is in a bit of a mess – but, seriously, not such a bad mess. You're still better off with it – or one of its forks, because this is FOSS – than pretty much any of the alternatives. Some of the punches landed here, e.g. axing Servo, are pretty devastating. Others, "why not buy an adblocker" (huh? they allow it via extensions which has been a longstanding tradition in the browser space), seem like non sequiturs. But the point remains: >Like we said, don't blame the app. You're still better off with Firefox or a fork such as Waterfox. Chrome even snoops on you when in incognito mode, and as we warned you, Google removed the APIs ad-blocker extensions used. You still get better ad-blocking in Firefox. Yes, exactly! It's a Two Things Can Be True situation.

93po 1y ago

been a firefox diehard for over a decade. moved to librewolf recently because the amount of ad-infested settings and "oopsie" default reversions to my settings that expose me yet again to ads and i yet again have to turn it off is just gross to me. i shouldnt have to fight against software and triple check my settings to not see mind polluting ads or have my information sold/shared

Henchman21 1y ago

All my hopes are with Ladybird now.

leakycap 1y ago
This could be a line in a post apocalyptic movie There are also Arc & Orion to look forward to as they mature.
fsflover 1y ago
Looks like xkcd should remake their comics replacing operating systems with browsers and GNU/Hurd with Ladybird, https://explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1508:_Operating_Systems https://explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1508:_Operating_Syste...

jhoechtl 1y ago

That reads dangerously close to an obituary.

Macha 1y ago

> We can point at what we'd like to see, sure. Did you know there's already a special developer's edition? No web designer is building on Firefox first any more. We're lucky if they even test on it. All the functionality attached to Firefox's "Browser tools" sub-menu should be unceremoniously ripped out, banished to the developer's edition. If they're still developing the dev tools (which I'd argue they need to if they want any companies to support the browser), then what's there to gain by removing it from the regular build? I don't get it.

blibble 1y ago

like most successful, supposedly focused non-profits, eventually the parasitical professional management class infiltrate it they do whatever is needed to increase their own compensation, eventually killing the host, at which point they move on the nominet drama a few years back ([1]) is one of the few cases where they were forcibly removed (due to its unique structure) [1]: https://openuk.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/The-Stack_Opening-up-Nominet.pdf https://openuk.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/The-Stack_Openi...

coffeecoders 1y ago

After each Firefox install, I do: - Right click context menu cleanup - I don't need Inspect Accessibility Properties, Email image, Set image as desktop background etc. - Disable telemetry - Minimal theme - Clean up search engines - Disable pocket, top sites, ads, what's new, search suggest - Disable tab groups, container, hover preview - Disable recommended extensions These can all be done through config or userChrome.css. After that, I install three extensions - uBlock, skip redirect, I don't care about cookies. I have never cared about signing into browser or syncing bookmarks. All I want is a minimal browser that doesn't bother me on each run.

tiberious726 1y ago

Firefox is not fine. If you think it is, please tell me how to disable BASIC http auth in it. (This is a serious problem, as it will send passwords unencrypted over a non SSL connection, and my users have been trained to type their sso password into every box they see (I know.... Not my doing)).

homebrewer 1y ago
about:config → network.http.basic_http_auth.enabled = false

g42gregory 1y ago

One of the most important open source projects in the world did not have a CEO who could read code since 2014? I am not surprised they are in trouble.

leakycap 1y ago
I worked for a huge healthcare organization and the CEO was not a doctor, nor was she even familiar with the field before leading the organization. CEOs are not "hands on the ground" in a functioning organization. When I hear things like this, it makes me wonder what CEO you have worked with and if they subscribed to the Jimmy Carter method of management or something. "No, no, let me diff the source on that, I am the CEO after all..."

delcaran 1y ago

The thing that keeps me on Firefox/Librewolf is the Holy Trinity of features: - Profiles (with selector in-browser since 139 AFAIR) - Container tabs - Temporary containers When some of the other browsers will have all these features, maybe I'll make the switch.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

thunkshift1 1y ago

same for intel

tiahura 1y ago

Mitchell Baker ran it into the ground and made a fortune doing so. Almost to the point that one might wonder if there may have been some sort of undisclosed quid pro quo with Google.

jajuuka 1y ago

Mozilla and Firefox is a great example of having too many advocates and not enough engineers. It's easy to find plenty of people committed to spreading the good word of Firefox or willing to answer Reddit threads with "just use Firefox". But there just isn't enough engineering effort to keep up with Chrome or Chromium.

npc_anon 1y ago

The article praises Jamie Zawinksi, for calling out Mozilla on its failings. My take is that listening to him is the quickest way to irrelevance. He calls out Mozilla for accepting crypto donations, so they stop it. Now they get less donations but there's no actual reduction in harm. Crypto still exists and has only grown. He calls out Mozilla for digging into AI. As a very generic anti-AI take. According to him, Mozilla should not invest in mitigating the risks of Big Tech AI, it should simply not play at all. And this way magically AI harm will be eliminated. He calls out the "original sin", DRM video. People that invest hundreds of millions into making a movie, aren't going to allow you to "right-click, save" on paid content. There's nothing morally wrong with paid content. I could go on but all of these takes are performative and useless. If you want to make the internet a better place you need to engage with the real world and not maneuver yourself into a tiny corner of irrelevance where you self-congratulate your theoretical moral purity to your 3 Mastodon friends that are equally obnoxious and out of touch.

creatonez 1y ago

The suggestion for browsers to integrate an ad blocker always worries me. uBlock Origin benefits from being shielded from monetary incentives, as they don't even allow small donations to the maintainers. That being said, Firefox frequently endorses the existing ecosystem of ad blockers in their featured extensions. They even featured AdNauseum, an ad blocker that attempts to DoS ad servers by sending fake clicks on every single ad. Google on the other hand labelled it malware and swiftly took it down. So right now, Mozilla is not at all an the enemy of arbitrary web content blocking.

pessimizer 1y ago

This entire thread seems like generative AI. Nobody normal thinks Mozilla is doing fine, or behaving rationally. Nobody thinks they've made any good decisions for a long time, but they see that the decisions they've made coincidentally benefit the source of 90% of their revenue, one of the most powerful corporations on the planet. This article is actually very complimentary. They haven't managed to totally destroy the browser itself yet. Some people working there must still love it. Wild that this thread got sunk with almost as many comments as upvotes. It's almost like we think that flooding an article with comments gets it pushed off the front page.