6 ms·

There was also no expectation of process isolation in Mozilla Firefox when Google Chrome first came into the scenes. Electrolysis was painful for Mozilla and ye

by mcny 10mo ago

There was also no expectation of process isolation in Mozilla Firefox when Google Chrome first came into the scenes. Electrolysis was painful for Mozilla and yet it was necessary.

protocolture 10mo ago
So instead of being flexible enough to adapt to new requirements as users demand them, they are blindly implementing things before they are requested just in case?
- heavyset_go 10mo ago
  Believe it or not well-intentioned developers, product managers, etc can read the writing on the wall and see where user expectations are heading based on the apps and products they already use.
  - protocolture 10mo ago
    Exactly why I am baffled. You would think they could read the writing on the wall.
    - heavyset_go 10mo ago
      I don't like it, but ChatGPT is a product that nearly a billion people are using. It's broken into popular culture. My mom, who has trouble sending an email, uses it. She found it on her own. More importantly, generative AI is incredibly popular with younger cohorts. They will grow up to be your customer base if they aren't already. Their expectations are being set now. Again, I don't like it, but that's the reality.
      - krisgenre 10mo ago
        + Children are growing up with ChatGPT and Gemini. It has already become the de facto standard for learning. AI in browsers is inevitable.
        rockskon 10mo ago
        ????? Why does the existance of an AI chat box website mean a browser must do more than take you to that website? The forceful inclusion of LLMs in places that have no value are simultaneously ubiquitous and obnoxious.
        darkwater 10mo ago
        "why do I have to go and fill with copy paste that form or navigate through that page to do $something if that AI browser can do it for me?" And in that scenario, there is a GIGANTIC need for a user-first, privacy-respecting browser using ideally local models (in a few years, when HW is ready)
        rockskon 10mo ago
        Again: ??????? You people need to be forced to use your product in the exact form your product is presented to end users. With the exact frequency it's presented to end users. In all the wrong places as it is presented to end users. Maybe then you'll understand why shoving AI in every conceivable crevice is incredibly obnoxious and distracting and, most importantly, not useful.
        darkwater 10mo ago
        Shoving an AI agent in every website is distracting and not that useful. Shoving an AI agent in every app is distracting as well. Having one global AI agent per operating system or browser (where most of the digital life happens, in the case of desktop browsers), for the people that want to have an AI agent, it's probably going to be useful, if well implemented.
        protocolture 10mo ago
        OS might make sense, but the browser level is a weird middle space for it.
      - protocolture 10mo ago
        Quoting myself from another thread. > I love it. I love going to the AI place and knowingly consulting the AI for tasks I want the AI to perform. That relationship is healthy and responsible. It doesnt need to be in everything else. Its like those old jokes about how inventions are just <existing invention> + <digital clock>. > I dont need AI on the desktop, in microsoft office, replying to me on facebook, responding to my google searches AND doing shit in my browser. One of these would be too much, because I can just access the AI I want to speak to whenever I want it. Any 2 of these is such substantial overkill. Why do we have all of them? Justify it. Is there a user story where a user was trying to complete a task but lacked 97% accurate information from 5 different sources to complete the task? Being against the random inclusion of AI in the browser, isnt the same as being against AI completely. It needs to justify its presence.
      - therouwboat 10mo ago
        Co-worker was talking about how he tried to make invitation card with chatgpt, just a picture of his house and text and AI failed to do it. It said he didn't have copyright to the picture and used another random pic, layout was wrong etc. Then younger co-worker gave tips how to do it, what tools to use and offered to make it with his better AI program. What could be done in few minutes with a free program is now multiple hours with billion dollar AI tools and you have less control what the end result is.
        7bit 10mo ago
        Obviously your co-worker was not able to do it in a few minutes with a free program, or he would just have done it this way.
      - bondarchuk 10mo ago
        Video games are incredibly popular and my mom plays them, does that mean Firefox should have video games baked in at the base layer?
        protocolture 10mo ago
        Firefox needs to immediately build Candy Crush into the browser. Users expect to be able to access Candy Crush and only at the layer of web browser can such a thing be implemented.
        heavyset_go 10mo ago
        In a world where people expect games in their browsers, sure.
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
- godelski 10mo ago
  Last I checked Firefox was sitting at 4% browser market share. If you include Brave you just get to 5%[0]. So truth is that privacy isn't enough to get people to switch. 5% share isn't enough to stay alive and protect privacy. > they are blindly implementing things before they are requested This is the job of every engineer. Your job is to understand the product and where it advances and where it can help the users. The users don't know the technical side. They barely know what they want. Yes, you should listen to users but you also have to read between the lines to actually figure out what they want. Frankly, the truth of the matter is that what people say they want is very different than what they actually want. Work with customers and you'll experience this first hand... I thought it was a big enough meme that everyone knew this Speaking about reading between the lines, the privacy community is not very good at advocating for privacy. Look at Signal, it has similar backlash to Mozilla. The community shoots itself in the foot because the products are not perfect. But here's the thing, both Signal and Firefox are not products intended to maximize privacy at all costs. They are products to maximize privacy while being appealing to the masses. Are there more secure and private solutions out there? Hell yeah. But are those tools practical for the masses? Don't fool yourselves. So stop with this bullshit, you're shooting yourself in the foot. You don't have to use Firefox to root for them. Go use a fork like the Mullvad browser or Waterfox. If you're a power user then just be a fucking power user. I use Arch but that doesn't mean I'm going to piss on Ubuntu every chance I get. I fucking hate Ubuntu but I'm going to root for them because every new Ubuntu user is one less for Microsoft and Apple and every new Ubuntu user is a potential new <literally any other distro is better> user. So why get angry because someone is making a step in the right direction? So what if their legs aren't long enough to get all the way to where you are (which didn't take one step either!). So let's be very clear about this. I'm not mad at you because I want AI in Firefox (I don't), I'm mad at you because you're attacking our literal last line of defense for a secure and private internet. I'm mad at you for purity testing. Stop with this "no true Scotsman" bullshit. We can have those arguments at a later date when Firefox isn't on its last leg and/or when we have a diverse choice in browsers. But at this point *all you are doing is advocating for Chrome*. Whether you realize it our not. We've been playing this fucking game for a decade now and you can either look at the results or continue to ignore them. But it didn't work, so we need to try something else. [0] https://radar.cloudflare.com/reports/browser-market-share-2025-q1 https://radar.cloudflare.com/reports/browser-market-share-20...

by mcny 10mo ago

There was also no expectation of process isolation in Mozilla Firefox when Google Chrome first came into the scenes. Electrolysis was painful for Mozilla and yet it was necessary.

protocolture 10mo ago

So instead of being flexible enough to adapt to new requirements as users demand them, they are blindly implementing things before they are requested just in case?

heavyset_go 10mo ago
Believe it or not well-intentioned developers, product managers, etc can read the writing on the wall and see where user expectations are heading based on the apps and products they already use.
- protocolture 10mo ago
  Exactly why I am baffled. You would think they could read the writing on the wall.
  - heavyset_go 10mo ago
    I don't like it, but ChatGPT is a product that nearly a billion people are using. It's broken into popular culture. My mom, who has trouble sending an email, uses it. She found it on her own. More importantly, generative AI is incredibly popular with younger cohorts. They will grow up to be your customer base if they aren't already. Their expectations are being set now. Again, I don't like it, but that's the reality.
    - krisgenre 10mo ago
      + Children are growing up with ChatGPT and Gemini. It has already become the de facto standard for learning. AI in browsers is inevitable.
      - rockskon 10mo ago
        ????? Why does the existance of an AI chat box website mean a browser must do more than take you to that website? The forceful inclusion of LLMs in places that have no value are simultaneously ubiquitous and obnoxious.
        darkwater 10mo ago
        "why do I have to go and fill with copy paste that form or navigate through that page to do $something if that AI browser can do it for me?" And in that scenario, there is a GIGANTIC need for a user-first, privacy-respecting browser using ideally local models (in a few years, when HW is ready)
        rockskon 10mo ago
        Again: ??????? You people need to be forced to use your product in the exact form your product is presented to end users. With the exact frequency it's presented to end users. In all the wrong places as it is presented to end users. Maybe then you'll understand why shoving AI in every conceivable crevice is incredibly obnoxious and distracting and, most importantly, not useful.
        darkwater 10mo ago
        Shoving an AI agent in every website is distracting and not that useful. Shoving an AI agent in every app is distracting as well. Having one global AI agent per operating system or browser (where most of the digital life happens, in the case of desktop browsers), for the people that want to have an AI agent, it's probably going to be useful, if well implemented.
        protocolture 10mo ago
        OS might make sense, but the browser level is a weird middle space for it.
    - protocolture 10mo ago
      Quoting myself from another thread. > I love it. I love going to the AI place and knowingly consulting the AI for tasks I want the AI to perform. That relationship is healthy and responsible. It doesnt need to be in everything else. Its like those old jokes about how inventions are just <existing invention> + <digital clock>. > I dont need AI on the desktop, in microsoft office, replying to me on facebook, responding to my google searches AND doing shit in my browser. One of these would be too much, because I can just access the AI I want to speak to whenever I want it. Any 2 of these is such substantial overkill. Why do we have all of them? Justify it. Is there a user story where a user was trying to complete a task but lacked 97% accurate information from 5 different sources to complete the task? Being against the random inclusion of AI in the browser, isnt the same as being against AI completely. It needs to justify its presence.
    - therouwboat 10mo ago
      Co-worker was talking about how he tried to make invitation card with chatgpt, just a picture of his house and text and AI failed to do it. It said he didn't have copyright to the picture and used another random pic, layout was wrong etc. Then younger co-worker gave tips how to do it, what tools to use and offered to make it with his better AI program. What could be done in few minutes with a free program is now multiple hours with billion dollar AI tools and you have less control what the end result is.
      - 7bit 10mo ago
        Obviously your co-worker was not able to do it in a few minutes with a free program, or he would just have done it this way.
    - bondarchuk 10mo ago
      Video games are incredibly popular and my mom plays them, does that mean Firefox should have video games baked in at the base layer?
      - protocolture 10mo ago
        Firefox needs to immediately build Candy Crush into the browser. Users expect to be able to access Candy Crush and only at the layer of web browser can such a thing be implemented.
      - heavyset_go 10mo ago
        In a world where people expect games in their browsers, sure.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
godelski 10mo ago
Last I checked Firefox was sitting at 4% browser market share. If you include Brave you just get to 5%[0]. So truth is that privacy isn't enough to get people to switch. 5% share isn't enough to stay alive and protect privacy. > they are blindly implementing things before they are requested This is the job of every engineer. Your job is to understand the product and where it advances and where it can help the users. The users don't know the technical side. They barely know what they want. Yes, you should listen to users but you also have to read between the lines to actually figure out what they want. Frankly, the truth of the matter is that what people say they want is very different than what they actually want. Work with customers and you'll experience this first hand... I thought it was a big enough meme that everyone knew this Speaking about reading between the lines, the privacy community is not very good at advocating for privacy. Look at Signal, it has similar backlash to Mozilla. The community shoots itself in the foot because the products are not perfect. But here's the thing, both Signal and Firefox are not products intended to maximize privacy at all costs. They are products to maximize privacy while being appealing to the masses. Are there more secure and private solutions out there? Hell yeah. But are those tools practical for the masses? Don't fool yourselves. So stop with this bullshit, you're shooting yourself in the foot. You don't have to use Firefox to root for them. Go use a fork like the Mullvad browser or Waterfox. If you're a power user then just be a fucking power user. I use Arch but that doesn't mean I'm going to piss on Ubuntu every chance I get. I fucking hate Ubuntu but I'm going to root for them because every new Ubuntu user is one less for Microsoft and Apple and every new Ubuntu user is a potential new <literally any other distro is better> user. So why get angry because someone is making a step in the right direction? So what if their legs aren't long enough to get all the way to where you are (which didn't take one step either!). So let's be very clear about this. I'm not mad at you because I want AI in Firefox (I don't), I'm mad at you because you're attacking our literal last line of defense for a secure and private internet. I'm mad at you for purity testing. Stop with this "no true Scotsman" bullshit. We can have those arguments at a later date when Firefox isn't on its last leg and/or when we have a diverse choice in browsers. But at this point *all you are doing is advocating for Chrome*. Whether you realize it our not. We've been playing this fucking game for a decade now and you can either look at the results or continue to ignore them. But it didn't work, so we need to try something else. [0] https://radar.cloudflare.com/reports/browser-market-share-2025-q1 https://radar.cloudflare.com/reports/browser-market-share-20...