Also a bunch of somewhat less heinous cringe shit.

    • Axiochus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I actually wonder about that. So Firefox is seemingly becoming more corpo in their approach. Their home tab now has random adverts and suggested sites that I should visit. I guess the general vibe that I’m getting is “sleek, polished”, which triggers some latent suspicion about the way they are headed. As many people, I keep returning to Firefox every year or so, just to see whether it can be transitioned to. Maybe that’s why it’s so jarring.

      I am also worried that “Firefox is the only real alternative” is not a healthy state of things. We get Chromium flavors, high maintenance nonsense, and Firefox.

      • MrCookieRespect@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        10 months ago

        You can use forks if you want, but you can also turn that stuff off altogether.

        Most famously TOR is a Firefox fork.

        • Sailor Sega Saturn@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          My estimate (source: sounds good in my head) is you’d need a dozen or so browser experts working full time for years to build a browser capable of rendering most modern “web-app” style websites.

          The core specs have a lot of integration tests (one of the shittier ones written by yours truly!), and most of the specs are pretty readable for experts (I hate the CSS Device Adaptation Module Level 1 spec though).

          There’s just a lot of it and a lot of subtle interactions which is where the time would go.

          If you were foolish enough to set many millions of dollars on fire* to do this you’d end up with a browser lacking in key non-core-spec areas too. Off the top of my head: print layout, security, JIT performance, HTTP2 / HTTP3, general browser performance, UI polish, PDF rendering, mobile version, plugins, and DRM “support” (good luck getting the DRM gatekeepers to let you bundle that stuff with your browser). Add some more years for all of that.

          * and/or smart enough to make it an open source project and convince people to do it for free, see the other commenter’s link to Ladybird below

          • Sailor Sega Saturn@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            10 months ago

            This appears to be a good excuse to hate on CSS Device Adaptation Module Level 1, let me quote from it so you understand the great sorrow I had when I needed to understand it:

            This section is not normative. This section describes a mapping from the content attribute of the viewport <META> element, first implemented by Apple in the iPhone Safari browser, to the descriptors of the @viewport rule described in this specification.

            Below is an algorithm for parsing the content attribute of the <META> tag produced from testing Safari on the iPhone. The testing was done on an iPod touch running iPhone OS 4. The UA string of the browser: “Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7”. The pseudo code notation used is based on the notation used in [Algorithms].

            If a prefix of property-value can be converted to a number using strtod, the value will be that number. The remainder of the string is ignored.

        • maol@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          Me and my mate had to come up with some fake policies for a fake Pirate Party and one of our policies was that the Irish government should commission a new internet browser. After all, the current bunch have a massive budget surplus that they want to get rid of before Sinn Féin get in.

      • RBG@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        Well, you do get Firefox flavours. There are a ton of forks available, many which are very privacy-centric, such as Fennec or Mull on mobile.

      • Sailor Sega Saturn@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        There have been a few bad signs over the years.

        Most striking was the “Looking Glass” plugin. This was a Mr. Robot (popular TV show at the time) promotional plugin that would alter the behavior of a few tie-in websites as part of an ARG. Besides that it was “harmless”, though had a vague description rather than saying what it was.

        It was pushed by default to users using their user study framework. It was launched quietly enough and without going through the normal process. Even a lot of firefox devs didn’t realize it until the press blew up.

        And one of the responses to the push back was:

        we heard from some of our users that the experience we created caused confusion

        Despite Firefox leadership and marketing being the ones who were confused about the proper way to use their own user study framework, or avoid launching bad changes.


        Aside: Mozilla also only just stopped accepting cryptocurrency donations in 2022, despite ostensibly caring about the environment and the internet.

        Overall Firefox is still pretty good, despite being under-invested in by Mozilla, but if you use it you should recommend that at the end of the day there’s a lot of corporate influence in it right now.

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        10 months ago

        Except that it uses chromium which contributes to the Google dominance of web standards

        • SurpriZe@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          But do they have to follow what Google is doing? Can’t they have full control over their own chromium version?

          • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            10 months ago

            Not really, chromium is mostly maintained by Google. They could fork it but that wouldn’t solve what I’m concerned about here

            • SurpriZe@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Does this mean Vivaldi devs have to constantly deal with what Google devs are doing? I was under the impression it’s a platform of their own.

              • earthquake@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                10 months ago

                Yes, not only is Vivaldi “just” patches on the Google chromium code, they are implicitly limited in what they can patch because they need to be able to port their patches to newer versions of Chromium in order to inherit all of the security features and continued compatibility with the chrome web store. The design and features of Vivaldi are necessarily heavily dictated by Google’s decisions.

                • SurpriZe@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  I’ve been using Vivaldi’s features (like the mouse gestures and a few other things) since its release. Would it be hard to migrate it all to Firefox or is there a better alternative?

                  • earthquake@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    Possible, yes. Hard? Probably also yes. There’s a lot of addons for Firefox but I don’t use gestures so I have no idea.

      • LucidNightmare@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’ve been using FF for over 15 years at this point and I have never, not even once, ran into any issues with any site that I went to. Now, is the website you are talking about shareable by you? I don’t want it if it’s a bank or something that could some how be linked to you. I just really really want to see a website that doesn’t work on FF. I’m not trying to come off as a dick or anything, I am genuinely interested to see what it looks like and how it behaves.

      • MrCookieRespect@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        Then these websites can go get fucked. I’m not using them, and when its my bank i walk my ass to my bank and cancel my bank account there.

        If you require chromium, you make people use a less secure browser because your company sucks Google dong. Fuck that, fuck them fuck it all.

      • 13617@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        I have the same experience. And sometimes it’s not that they don’t work, it’s that they work very poorly. The second I switch to a chromium based browser it’s fixed. I had huge issues with Google Earth on Firefox, even after I cleared my cookies and cache. Booted up ungoogled chromium and worked fine. Same with YouTube. Kept pausing and loading for absolutely no reason (1gig connection). Switch to chromium? Fine. Just my examples in the past couple days, I’ve had issues on non Google websites too.