return to table of content

Why I use Firefox

zahma
39 replies
4h27m

I don't see why I would want to use anything else. Even if Chrome is marginally faster in an arbitrary benchmark test, I doubt I'd notice. And so far, I have no interoperability issues between Firefox on my laptop (macOS) and my iPhone (iOS), which runs Safari + Firefox Focus (because it's all the same webkit underneath). The add-on and plug-in marketplace is quite healthy, too. At the end of the day, I care about open-source software that doesn't model its business around capturing and manufacturing my data for export -- just the opposite. Thank goodness for Mozilla and all its collaborators.

ajorgensen
13 replies
2h26m

I have tried to switch quite a few times over the years to Firefox and I still to this day consistently run into websites that are unusably broken on Firefox, do you have the same experience? I realize this probably speaks volumes to the need for more people to use browsers other than Chrome but its unfortunately frequent enough that I always end up switching back to Chrome after a few months.

smhenderson
2 replies
2h20m

I, similar to the parent, have very few issues on either my computers or phones. I run Firefox on several different OS's and I just don't have the issues you mention.

Do you have some examples of websites that really behave that differently depending on the browser you're using?

Having lived through the "best viewed with..." days I'd hoped we were past all that by now!

cubefox
0 replies
2h10m

Google Images has problems with Firefox. If previewing several related pictures, the back button of the browser doesn't bring you back to the last image, but to somewhere else.

ajorgensen
0 replies
1h27m

The most recent ones that I ran into seem to have been fixed based on a quick check. mermaid.js docs site was one of them where nothing on the page was clickable (I think Firefox was rendering an invisible div over the entire page) but this issue wasn't present in Chrome or Safari. That appears to have been fixed. Examples are hard to provide since they almost always get fixed but in the moment its enough pain to always get me to drop Firefox.

jstanley
2 replies
2h22m

People always say this but almost never are they able to give examples.

rprospero
0 replies
1h57m

Concrete examples:

The web interfaces for both Jitsi and Zoom fail to recognise my web camera. I've gone through the permissions settings a dozen times and Firefox says that it sees camera, but it only displays a black feed. Vivaldi correctly accesses the camera on both sites.

imascientist.org.uk makes it "impossible" to sign up for outreach sessions under Firefox. The div with the sessions has a `max-width` parameter, but the contents are significantly larger than this width, resulting in the buttons being outside the rendering area and inaccessible. I have to go into the dev tools and edit the CSS every time I open the page.

These are just the issues that I've dealt with today. Don't get me wrong - I'm literally typing this in Firefox at this moment. However, it doesn't help anyone to pretend that these issues never pop up. I simply feel that the benefits outweight these annoyances.

ajorgensen
0 replies
1h30m

I unfortunately do not have a running list. The one that made me drop Firefox last time was the mermaid.js docs site. None of the sidebar navigation was clickable but only on Firefox, the same issue did not appear on Safari or Chrome. It appears they have since fixed that issue as I retested and it appears fine.

The "give me examples" is sort of a moving target, anecdotally I have run into many more completely or partially broken sites when using Firefox as compared to Chrome and Safari. It is likely that some or all of those examples are now fixed but the pain in the moment is enough to keep me from using the browser long term.

Twirrim
1 replies
2h17m

Honestly? No. If I do it's on the order of "once in a year", and usually only sites that are doing something specifically quirky, like particular types of webgpu demos or somesuch.

ajorgensen
0 replies
1h25m

Oh interesting. I actually find custom docs sites (mermaid.js was the most recent one for me) seem to be the ones that break most commonly for me in Firefox but work in Chrome and Safari.

talim
0 replies
2h17m

I've been using Firefox as a daily driver for four years and have not run into a single site that was truly "unusably" broken except perhaps some Google-published tech demo for a new webgpu feature.

I've occasionally run into relatively minor visual issues (I think from before the :has pseudo-class was made generally available in FF) but I cannot think of a single instance where a site was unusable and then worked when I tried it in Chrome.

shrimp_emoji
0 replies
2h15m

The only reason websites break on Firefox for me is that I break them myself with uBlock Origin and NoScript. >:D I'd rather have them broken than put up with their repugnant bullshit. The rare time I need a site to work pristinely for some reason, I begrudgingly pull out my (mostly) vanilla Chrome though.

mostlysimilar
0 replies
2h3m

Often claimed, never backed up with links.

layer8
0 replies
2h18m

There is the occasional site, but you can restrict your use of Chromium to that (and don’t need to use Chrome at all).

coryfklein
0 replies
1h29m

I use Firefox as my daily driver. There are in fact some websites that don't work on it, but it is rarely anything mainstream. My example is the website 3M provides for doing medical code grouping. Probably less than 0.01% of the internet uses it, but it only works on Chrome and then just barely.

skizm
7 replies
2h40m

I still need to use Chrome for YouTube when I'm on my Windows 11 desktop unfortunately. YouTube in FF causes weird issues with my monitor turning on and off after I've been watching YT for more than like 20 min. It gets into a state where any new windows I open or close cause the screen to turn off then on. I have no idea where to even begin diagnosing what's going on. This behavior seemingly goes away when I run YT in chrome and everything else in FF.

swat535
3 replies
1h29m

Yup, you also need Chrome if you are using Google Meet, otherwise our experience will be significantly degraded.

wiether
1 replies
1h9m

Now on FF you also have the webcam filters and stuff like that on Google Meet.

It was my only reason to launch Chrome on my job laptop and it's been six months that I use Google Meet daily on FF without issue.

foobarchu
0 replies
50m

I and my coworkers have recently switched from WebEx to Meet in the last month (thank goodness), and all found meet unbearable on ff. The most common issue is audio simply going out a few minutes in until you refresh. These issues, for whatever reason, don't happen on chrome, so we all keep both installed (except the regular chrome users).

For whatever reason, the experience just isn't there. Maybe it's Mozillas fault, maybe it's Google's, maybe it's even Apple's.

CoolCold
0 replies
19m

I do use Edge for this, any hint of what I may be loosing by not using Chrome for Gmeet?

yoyohello13
0 replies
2h36m

Same, I don't know what it is but firefox locks up whenever I try to watch youtube on my laptop. It's only my windows laptop too. My linux laptop, and windows desktop at work are fine.

ravenstine
0 replies
2h36m

Does that also happen for other video sites?

cardboardmetal
0 replies
2h21m

Weird. I would try changing the browser's hardware acceleration settings.

javajosh
5 replies
4h16m

I agree. I would also suggest occasionally checking out the other browsers like Opera and Vivaldi because they often have a surprising feel and feature set. Vivaldi in particular has a very nice RSS/Atom feed reader built into it, and Opera tends to be very fast.

(Mozilla and Goog were smart to start offering account-based sync because this creates a moat for regular adoption. But anyone can and should go window-shopping for browsers - it's cheap entertainment, at the very least.)

dartos
1 replies
3h44m

I wouldn’t touch opera with a 1000ft pole.

Any non OSS browser makes me feel weird. The amount of trust you place in a browser is insane.

J253
1 replies
3h6m

Agreed. I find Vivaldi’s split pane ability incredibly useful. Surprised other browsers haven’t implemented this kind of this yet.

wilsonnb3
0 replies
2h45m

I think edge has it

zahma
0 replies
2h51m

I try Orion once in a while when my Firefox configuration breaks a website. I actually enjoy it and appreciate the zero telemetry and functionality with both Google and Firefox plugin marketplaces. It’s also great for my laptop’s battery life. Firefox can drain that quickly depending on which tabs I keep open.

tasuki
0 replies
35m

Isn't that pretty much irrelevant? Won't network speed etc make much more of a difference?

nozzlegear
0 replies
2h42m

Neat site but it almost needs a flash/epilepsy warning =P

fauigerzigerk
0 replies
4h4m

I'm getting

  457 - Chrome
  444 - Safari
  348 - Firefox
M1 Mac

brokencube
0 replies
4h12m

Probably subjective to your particular set up - I just got the opposite results on my mac:

202 ± 4.7 - Chrome

184 ± 5.0 - Firefox

171 ± 2.6 - Safari

Meegul
0 replies
2h48m

357 - Chrome with extensions

511 - Chrome without any extensions

433 - Clean firefox install

500 - Clean edge install

On an AMD Ryzen 7950X3D / 5600MHz RAM

Interestingly, I got substantially different results depending on whether I used chrome with my typical extensions or not. Looking at the flamegraph, I don't seem to see the full picture of why there's such a substantial difference. Bitwarden/React Developer tools (the 2 primary extensions I use) don't seem to make enough of an impact to account for the roughly 40% performance increase seen without them. The browserbench javascript accounted for ~38.6% of the overall time taken for the benchmark, but the sum of my extensions was only 6.5%. I'm not incredibly familiar with browser performance profiling, so there's probably more to the story.

stronglikedan
2 replies
2h56m

In my opinion, Chrome is more polished (no pun intended). Just the little things that allow me to work faster, whether the browser itself is faster or not. I try FF about every 3 months or so, but keep coming back to Chrome.

jwells89
0 replies
2h25m

I use Firefox as a secondary browser on my Macs and primary browser on Windows and Linux, but I agree. It lacks polish, and its UI feels “off” in ways that are difficult to articulate.

It’s probably fixable, though. One of these days when I have some surplus time I’d like to grab a copy of the Firefox source, see how practical changing its UI is, and figure out if the root cause of lack of polish is technical or organizational. If it’s the latter a fork may be in order.

berkes
0 replies
2h50m

I try FF about every 3 months or so, but keep coming back to Chrome

I don't know your specific reasons. But commonly this is just familiarity bias.

That doesn't say that X is better than Y in general (it often isn't) just that you know X better than Y and therefore it's better for you.

It's why I've never been able to switch to emacs despite trying it out. It's why I'm forever stuck on Ubuntu, despite the fact that there are DEs/distros out there that suit my use case better, probably.

reportgunner
0 replies
4h22m

I think more recent benchmarks showed that Firefox became faster than Chrome, although I'm not keeping a close eye on it and I agree with you that it's arbitrary.

For the past 6+ years I only use Chrome rarely and as an Internet Explorer replacement.

dominick-cc
0 replies
2h47m

I use chromium-browsers only for video conferencing because I have had some weird scenarios with choppy video on firefox.

jhoechtl
34 replies
4h36m

For me it's

Mozilla develops their own browser engine

This is key. Without Mozilla we are aproaching monopoly as Safari aproaches gradually Internet Explorer.

rvnx
12 replies
4h32m

It would be true, if in practice all the finances of Mozilla didn't come from Google.

So it's like Google wearing a mask.

dralley
4 replies
3h37m

Oh look, it's my least favorite HN trope.

Comment A) "Screw Mozilla, all their funding comes from their Google Search deal, they're just Google in a mask"

Comment B) "Screw Mozilla, they waste all this money on side projects (that would provide diversification and non-Google revenue streams) when they should be spending all of their effort on Firefox (which is effectively un-monetizable apart from the search deal - and you can bet hard money that there would be screaming if they tried)"

dingnuts
3 replies
3h28m

no, the criticism of their side projects is NOT that they would provide diversification, it's that they're usually politically motivated feel-good marketing distractions with no chance of ever producing additional revenue except maybe by bringing users to Firefox by convincing them that Mozilla better-aligns with their worldview or whatever

except oops all corporate politics are the same so the politically motivated feel-good crap from Mozilla is exactly the same as the politically motivated feel-good crap from every other corporation and so it's all just a waste of time and money and effort that COULD as you put it "provide diversification" instead, if Mozilla was competently run

dathinab
1 replies
3h9m

that they're usually politically motivated feel-good marketing distractions

most of them where not

especially if you look at resource distributions

Like tab containers, browser sync, firefox SSO, VR, FirefoxOs, Pocket, the send file thing, relay, VPN, privacy preserving Translation, TTS, reader mode, pdf.js.

Non of them are "politically motivated feel-good marketing distractions" but bets to diversification (which also mostly failed for one reason or another) (and yes Pocket contains political motivated nonsens in it's recommendation system, but by itself isn't a politically motivated features, but a feature I would want to see more of deeper integrated into FF, just REALLY without the recommendation system and a somehow more natural part-of-FF felling UI/UX).

I mean sure that color theme nonsense was politically motivated feel-good nonsense. But using that as point to get hung up on is exactly what the OP comment meant, people tend to be very selective about remembering things so that they fit their narrative.

Anthony-G
0 replies
2h18m

That’s a great list of nice things that are easy to take for granted. While reading it, I couldn’t help but think of the “What have the Romans ever done for us” scene from Monty Python¹.

I didn’t know about Text to Speech (TTS) but personally wouldn’t have much use for it. The other things I didn’t recognise is VR. I’m guessing this refers to Firefox Reality on the Oculus Go VR Headset² (which seems to be no longer available).

¹ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ

² https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-reality...

dralley
0 replies
2h8m

I'm going to name some side projects, would you like to explain how the are merely "feel-good marketing"?

- Rust

- LetsEncrypt (collaboration)

- Opus (collaboration)

- AV1 (collaboration)

- Mozilla Common Voice database

- FirefoxOS

- MozillaVPN

- Lockwise

- Relay

- Bugzilla

- Servo

- Pocket

- MDN

- The VR projects - even if you think they're dumb they're hardly political feel-good stuff.

- The new privacy monitoring services

- The Scroll partnership (defunct because Twitter bought them and destroyed it)

Pawka
1 replies
4h24m

Google is paying because Firefox is popular. It is a chicken & egg problem.

kijin
0 replies
4h15m

Google is paying because if they didn't, Microsoft or somebody else might.

usefulcat
0 replies
3h33m

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

goda90
0 replies
4h24m

Google has an interest in not looking like an all controlling monopoly. I doubt they'd want to risk that by coercing Mozilla too much.

dathinab
0 replies
3h20m

sure, except that Google has pretty much no control over firefox

Saying Firefox is Google wearing a mask is some wild conspiracy theory.

bryanlarsen
0 replies
4h17m

Regardless of funding, it's still an independently developed browser engine.

Dennip
0 replies
4h0m

I suspect they also want to avoid monopoly regulation noises. "hey look, this competitor exists"

rappr
10 replies
4h28m

In general, wouldn’t Chrome be much closer to being Internet Explorer?

assimpleaspossi
4 replies
4h1m

Internet Explorer did their own thing and damn web standards. Chrome follows the standards.

adrianN
2 replies
4h0m

Well, the chrome people have a hand in writing those standards…

seanw444
1 replies
3h32m

Chrome basically is the standard. If Chrome adds it, developers will use it.

quesera
0 replies
2h27m

And this is exactly the problem.

Google is a better steward of their default position than Microsoft was, by a mile, so far.

But the web and the internet is more important than Google.

Use Firefox. :)

wpm
0 replies
3h30m

Chrome follows a lot of draft standards that they themselves submitted. Not really the same thing.

dathinab
2 replies
3h21m

both

Chrome is doing the "I make my own web standards and push them through, ups now my feature is standard incompatible so I try to force change the upcoming standard just before it gets committed" thing IE had done in the past (it's e.g. the main reason why you sometimes end up with CORS issues on FF, the site isn't standard compatible as it doesn't handle a certain thing the standard requires from websites but due to a last minute exception for chrome doesn't require browsers to enforce).

And Safari does the "I don't adopt new standards forever and have strange bugs" IE think. Funnily like IE there are a lot of devs which swear that it has no strange bug problem (because they mainly use libraries developed on/for or at least tested with safari, but if you use some more newer tech it Safari support can be quite costly).

extra88
0 replies
11m

Yes both Chrome and Safari are "the new IE" but for different reasons

I think people make too much of Safari lagging in the adoption of standards. Yes, they lag behind on what Chrome is pushing but they're also ahead on other features, like color spaces.

I'm familiar with Safari strange bugs but it's usually while I'm testing with VoiceOver so I have fewer occasions to notice bugs with Chrome or Firefox, which don't work as well with VoiceOver overall.

I think of Safari being the new IE because it's not as evergreen as other browsers; old but still usable iPhones and iPads can't run the current version and aren't allowed to run anything else. Thus, developers have more reason to care about what a browser from 2+ years ago supports.

cptskippy
0 replies
2h32m

To be fair, IE and Netscape existed before there was an active standards body. 25 years ago standards were developed in a waterfall like process that took years.

The only time new features were released was when IE or Netscape pushed them.

reportgunner
0 replies
4h20m

Chrome already is the new Internet Explorer (I know about MS Edge).

actionfromafar
0 replies
4h18m

Depends on what year the analogy is in ... (2002?) or on what platform. (iOS?)

robertoandred
5 replies
2h53m

A ludicrous and non-serious statement. Safari leads in several areas, and both it and Firefox push back against Google’s self-serving and privacy-threatening “features” it wants people to think are web standards.

berkes
2 replies
2h46m

Safari leads in several areas

This is the first time I've ever heard someone say this. The overwelming sentiment is that safari is leagues behind, lacks features, lacks performance is has the worst standards support of all common browsers.

What areas are you referring to?

All we ever did at my jobs, when people complained "it doesn't work on safari" is put up a banner for safari users pointing them to either the app-store for our app, or to the fact their browser is not supported.

I've only ever gotten complaints from safari users that stuff was broken (It wasn't, their browser just did stuff wrong/differently/not-yet)

robertoandred
1 replies
2h38m

Position sticky, has, subgrid, and filters to name a few. And now it’s pushing forward color standards, better text layout, new image formats, and more css math functions.

extra88
0 replies
2m

Yes to all of this. It's easy to find plenty of features on CanIUse.com (with the Date Relative view) that were shipped by Safari before Chrome (Firefox had SubGrid way before the others but there was a long gap until Chrome finally shipped it).

g8oz
0 replies
2h34m

Safari suffered from years of under investment. I understand that the situation has recently changed.

VancouverMan
0 replies
1h58m

If you use Firefox for privacy reasons, and especially if you're concerned about your data potentially ending up with Google (or other entities), please be sure to read the Firefox Privacy Notice:

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/

It currently mentions "Google" a number of times, along with "Microsoft", "eBay", "AdMarketplace", "Cloudflare", "Comcast", "Adjust", "Fastly", "our partners", and other entities.

I think a lot of people believe that Firefox respects its users' privacy more than it actually does.

They may be surprised to learn how many, and which, third-parties might be involved when using Firefox.

Zambyte
3 replies
4h33m

Googles recognition of this fact seems to be exactly why they keep Mozilla afloat. Firefox is the best anti-anti-trust argument that have.

bachmeier
2 replies
3h29m

This seems to be a popular opinion, but I believe they probably do it because it's good for their bottom line. The MS case was very different. The only relevant market was desktop computing, they had a monopoly on the desktop OS market, they baked the browser into the OS for no good reason, and they were taking actions to make OS competition impossible. Having a high desktop browser market share number honestly isn't a problem.

cptskippy
0 replies
2h37m

Every major tech company has used the outcome of the MS Monopoly Trial as a playbook of dos and don'ts to avoid getting sued.

Aeolun
0 replies
3h22m

It’s also hard to argue they don’t allow competition when literally anyone can pull the source at any time.

jjordan
19 replies
4h3m

Sometimes I wonder where Firefox might be today if, in the last 10 years, it had competent leadership singularly focused on delivering the absolute best browser in existence.

walrus01
7 replies
3h51m

I can't even recall the names and purpose any of their other side projects other than some janky mobile phone OS and hardware attempt. But clearly they've put a lot of staffing resources and money into some of them.

lenerdenator
3 replies
2h58m

Firefox OS was actually a not terrible idea. Instead of having applications written in a platform-specific stack, do it with web technologies and make the apps PWAs.

Seeing how many people are now criticizing Apple for hobbling PWAs with Safari on iOS, I'd say they were just ahead of their time.

wilsonnb3
1 replies
2h33m

Plus it lives on today as KaiOS, you can buy plenty of phones that run it.

It didn’t end up challenging the Apple/Google duopoly like Mozilla wanted but I think they should have stuck with it anyways.

lenerdenator
0 replies
2h25m

It makes sense that it didn't for technical and business reasons. We weren't where we are now on PWA technologies in 2012. But it would also introduced another layer of data permissions abstraction over the info so many of these applications rely on to be so profitable.

jwells89
0 replies
1h53m

The thing that killed FirefoxOS, in my opinion, was trying to break into the industry with low-end devices. The mission of providing privacy-respecting, user-empowering phones at low prices is a noble one, but starting at the low end with a physical product makes success much less likely.

By doing that you have to contend with low-to-nonexistent margins, green unoptimized software struggling to run on weak hardware, and the fact that nobody (users and devs alike) really gets excited or talks about entry level devices.

Mozilla might’ve caught some transitory flack for focusing on flagships initially, but it would’ve made for a much more usable product out of the gate and helped to fund R&D to make more affordable models a reality.

bbkane
2 replies
3h42m

Rust was a Mozilla side project for a while. Then (if I'm remembering the posts right), they laid off most of the team.

Aeolun
1 replies
3h18m

Wasn’t that servo?

cptskippy
0 replies
2h27m

Servo was a browser rendering engine written entirely in Rust. It was a casualty of COVID and transferred to the Linux Foundation in 2020.

Rust was a project started by Mozilla Research employees but not affiliated with Mozilla. Though they did sponsor it in 2009.

dralley
7 replies
3h33m

Oh look, it's my least favorite HN trope.

Comment A) "Screw Mozilla, all their funding comes from their Google Search deal, they're just Google in a mask"

Comment B) "Screw Mozilla, they waste all this money on side projects (that would provide non-Google revenue streams) when they should be spending all of their effort on Firefox (which is effectively un-monetizable apart from the search deal - and you can bet hard money there'd be screaming if they tried)"

Can we at least acknowledge that most of the side projects did lead to improvements in the browser and web ecosystem? FirefoxOS led to a bunch of focus on memory usage & responsiveness as well as web APIs that provided more parity between web and native apps. LetsEncrypt got a big boost from Mozilla as did Opus and AV1. Rust is in a class of its own. The VPN deal doesn't require that much investment from Mozilla since it's based on Mullvad. The voice & language database is a big boon to the current open source AI training movement, etc.

logicprog
2 replies
2h24m

That post's points about Mozilla's source of revenue and expenditure on their CEO are good, but the rest is a politically motivated hit job. They spend the first few sections establishing that Mozilla has a ton of revenue, and then the best examples of misspent money they can bring up are utter peanuts in comparison to the revenue they literally just established Mozilla has. $300,000 is nothing compared to $600,000,000, yet they continue pretending it's this huge unconscionable amount of money: "possibly millions" — how? Unless there are literally hundreds of these companies they're sending these tiny amounts of money to, it adds up to a tiny amount of their overall spending, let alone revinue.

Why? These are such tiny, meaningless amounts in the grand scheme of Mozilla's finances, why focus on them so much and make such a big deal out of them?

Well, from their analyses of the companies this money is being sent to, including the copious use of scare quotes around basic terms like cis, as well as several comments about the political leanings of these organizations, it's very clear that the author of this blog post is not really upset because Mozilla is spending money that isn't related to their core mission, since it's basically a drop in the bucket, but is really more angry that the money is going to places they politically disagree with.

Their argument that this is objectively bad, as opposed to just being a reason for them and other conservatives to not donate if they really care that much, is just hogwash too. The idea that the people who are donating to Mozilla think all of that money is going to building the browser and would have no way of knowing that Mozilla is a politically motivated organization that has a certain stance and will donate money to further that stance is absurd: Mozilla makes it very clear that they as a foundation exist to do far more than just work on Firefox and a few other projects, that they have large scale social goals, and neither do they do anything to hide the fact that their values and goals are oriented very much in a progressive direction. The idea that someone would be shocked that Mozilla has a progressive leaning and is looking to forward progressive causes after reading this (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/) or many other things on their site is just laughable to me.

dralley
0 replies
2h10m

Lunduke once claimed that Mozilla supports terrorists because they donated money to a pro-privacy email service that he claimed was commonly used by Antifa.

I have a low opinion of Lunduke. Most of his criticisms are, if not entirely false, in extreme bad faith.

KronisLV
0 replies
1h32m

That post's points about Mozilla's source of revenue and expenditure on their CEO are good, but the rest is a politically motivated hit job.

I don't dabble in US politics too much because I'm European, but it felt a bit odd to read the article and encounter the way it frames things.

As if donating money to a bunch of organizations that care about trans issues, pro-choice, vaccine acceptance and a bunch of other social justice stuff is somehow a horrible thing to do, especially when the amount of money being donated is equivalent to the salaries of a few qualified engineers.

> Why does Mozilla give so much money to political speakers that have no relationship to their core business?

What exactly is wrong with a company choosing to support a left political leaning? From what I've read of USA, those might in general be more grounded and regard privacy higher, than the right leaning stuff like needing an ID to watch pornography, banning books and all that other weird stuff, which might lead to some surveillance state.

> Why does Mozilla seem unconcerned with alienating a large portion of their user base (which is already shrinking)?

I don't get it, who cares about this so much that it'd alienate them? It's akin to me seeing that my KitKat chocolate bar supports planting more trees, going on some charade about climate change and then boycotting their products. Surely nobody gets so worked up over some money going towards initiatives that'd arguably make lives better?

> Why do some of the recipients of Mozilla money appear to be nothing more than empty shells of companies — not even having a simple website?

This is a better point, as are the other questions in my opinion. But at the same time, if there are corporations that support the far right, I don't mind Mozilla throwing some money in a direction to balance things out, even if it might be a bit performative due to the comparatively small sums.

romanows
0 replies
2h42m

It's possible that different sets of people hold different opinions. I'm in the "build the people's browser" camp. I don't care where the $500 million comes from, but it doesn't seem to mostly go into Firefox development, and I wish it would.

caskstrength
0 replies
1h42m

Oh look, it's my least favorite HN trope...

You don't need to copy/paste this to all your comments. Some people may disagree with you and dismissing them like that will only lead to resentment.

Can we at least acknowledge that most of the side projects did lead to improvements in the browser and web ecosystem?

Indeed, a lot of the stuff you mentioned _indirectly_ improved some things in Firefox-the-web-browser. Now image how much better it could have been be if all that resources had been invested in the browser quality directly.

Pufferbo
0 replies
2h41m

Firefox Rely is the best mail alias service I’ve used. Even though my Fastmail subscription comes with both aliases and masks, I still pay the 1$/month for Relay. It’s such a great UX to be able to create new alias on demand.

dathinab
2 replies
3h45m

I'm not sure it hadn't had competent leadership tbh.

HN loved to hate on it's decision but a lot of them (like XUL removal) where strictly necessary for firefox to still have any chance for relevancy.

And while they did try out a lot of things but FF fundamentally has a hard time gaining new users as they have very little killer features. So stuff like pocket, VR or FirefoxOS where needed tries of FF to gain some feature with which you can gain users. Tries they lost but I would say failing to try would have been worse leadership.

extraduder_ire
0 replies
1h58m

I'm incredibly glad they created firefox VR and that its development is being continued as wolvic. Only VR web browser I've come across that supports ublock origin. I might switch if the regular android firefox could use the quest's VR features though.

caskstrength
0 replies
1h35m

So stuff like pocket, VR or FirefoxOS where needed tries of FF to gain some feature with which you can gain users. Tries they lost but I would say failing to try would have been worse leadership.

You know what else could have gained them new users? Best in class mobile browser supporting full range of FF extensions! Instead they dragged their feet on extension support for years and its performance on Android is still inconsistent for me.

Synaesthesia
13 replies
4h33m

It's a great browser for Android. You get superior ad blocking and background video playing, extensions like dark reader...

DavidPeiffer
4 replies
4h23m

I use it for 95% of my browsing, with exactly the extensions you mention, but I do have to recognize it's stability is rough at times. Every now and then I run into a site that fails hard, crashing the entire UI on my Pixel 6 Pro.

Admittedly I haven't tried disabling extensions and finding the root cause. I just switch to Chrome for that task.

anneessens
1 replies
3h29m

Same, Firefox on Android is extremely buggy for me. I experience frequent crashes because I have too many tabs open at once. Multiple times per day, I have to restart the app because the theme will bug between light and dark, which makes some of the UI text unreadable. And sometimes when I restart, I lose some of my most recent tabs for some reason. Very frustrating, but Firefox Sync and extension support are essential for me, so I deal with it.

By the way, I actually use Fennec from F-Droid and not Firefox from the Google Play Store, if that matters.

corney91
0 replies
2h43m

FWIW I also use Fennec from F-Droid and I'm getting very slow behaviour and crashes with lots of tabs open (between 10-30). I don't have the theme change or tabs missing though.

I've been meaning to try different Firefox distributions though because switching away from Firefox isn't really an option for the reasons you've stated.

paulryanrogers
0 replies
4h19m

Interesting. The only issues I've found in the past few years is that running multiple profiles and using the picture-in-picture pop-out sometimes causes a missing cursor or small pop-up window.

No doubt Chrome's more modern stack and hefty resources help in ironing out hardware-specific quirks.

GordonS
0 replies
4h15m

I use Firefox on mobile every day (with uBlock Origin and Tampermonkey extensions), and I don't recall it ever crashing on me. Pixel 6a, and a Xiaomi thing previously.

reddalo
3 replies
4h21m

And soon, thanks to the European Union, it's going to be great on iOS too.

Now browsers will be allowed to use their custom engine (they were forced to all use Safari up until now), so thank you EU for the new DMA!

tgv
0 replies
2h44m

On the contrary. Chrome will push out Safari on iOS. Lazy web devs will do the rest. It will usher in a glorious era of Chrome/Google/Alphabet dominance, with Google accounts becoming unavoidable. All hail the personalized ad!

paulryanrogers
0 replies
4h15m

This assumes vendors will bother if only EU users can benefit. Maintaining two significantly different branches is a lot of work.

dns_snek
0 replies
3h26m

I imagine it's going to be a long road ahead. Our regulators first need to get Apple to cut the bullshit before any of this can materialize.

wasyl
0 replies
4h14m

Thank you for this! I wondered why image search is barely usable on mobile Firefox - turns out it's just Google hampering the competition!

ta988
0 replies
4h20m

Google broke image search recently too.

anbotero
0 replies
2h12m

I use Firefox Focus on Android. I don’t really care for most articles I open on my phone, usually a quick look will do, so whenever I close it or it automatically closes all tabs I’m not in the least worried.

mrwizardno2
10 replies
4h28m

Mozilla says that they can’t (decrypt my data on their servers), and I trust them.

I don't. I still neuter Firefox (LibreWolf, mostly.) and disable all the sync nonsense.

abound
5 replies
4h27m

One can self-host the sync server. I do this and it works great across Android and a Linux desktop, including live showing which tabs are open.

franky47
2 replies
4h22m

What does the storage layer (database) contain? Clear-text, usable data, or encrypted randomness?

abound
1 replies
3h13m

Great question! I'd never actually checked, but opening up the SQLite database, it looks encrypted. I see a table `batch_upload_items` full of ciphertexts.

I'm running the old Python sync server for the time being.

the_third_wave
1 replies
4h14m

Sync can be self-hosted but the equally necessary auth-service is centralised at Mozilla. This does not make sense from a technical perspective and is reason for me to not use Firefox sync. I used to run is predecessor and liked the services it provided so I'd like to run the whole current stack as well but alas.

abound
0 replies
3h18m

My understanding is that can be self-hosted as well, it's just slightly more annoying.

exo762
0 replies
4h21m

Do you consider it to be useless or is it something else? Privacy concerns (it is e2e encrypted btw)?

Accacin
0 replies
4h9m

So, you trust some other random people with your privacy instead then?

crazygringo
8 replies
4h19m

xn--ime-zza.eu

šime.eu

Looks like HN needs Punycode support [1] when it displays the domain name after the article title.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punycode

walrus01
2 replies
3h50m

Or maybe it's good that HN doesn't support punycode so that you can know immediately that you're visiting an IDN domain name, and people don't try to sneak in submissions with IDF homograph similarities to troll or pretend to be a site that they're not.

mariusor
1 replies
2h59m

I doubt that a malicious punycode host name would pass muster more than a minute under the scrutiny of the HN crowd.

walrus01
0 replies
2h52m

Indeed so, but it would be amusing to see someone try. More likely someone would register a $11 throw away .com or .net domain to host a temporary httpd and post as a joke with some hand crafted satire of a new tech product, which has lots of potential.

samatman
1 replies
3h11m

when it displays the domain name

That is the domain name.

I'm glad that Hacker News, the site for hackers, displays the domain name, and not the rendered display version of the domain name. Other places can and should do it differently, it's the right choice here.

crazygringo
0 replies
1h44m

But I can't read the ASCII encoding. It's gibberish. It tells me nothing about which site the article is from. It's unintelligible. You might as well not show anything at all.

I can't understand why you think the underlying ASCII encoding should be used, instead of the Unicode domain that actually gets rendered in the browser's address bar.

That makes as much sense as saying non-ASCII characters in the comments section should be displayed as raw ASCII bytes instead of correctly interpreted as UTF-8 characters. Or that domains shouldn't even be displayed as letters but just as sequences of numbers that are the code points.

The whole point of a domain name is to be semantically meaningful. Otherwise we'd just use IP addresses.

qwery
1 replies
4h3m

What does it mean for HN to "support" punycode? That `Apple Vision Pro 2 | xn--80ak6aa92e.com` will appear as `[...] | apple.com`?

sulam
0 replies
3h47m

Literally what they said. The site for this post doesn’t display properly.

911e
0 replies
2h35m

yeah accents on website is not great

kome
7 replies
4h32m

I never used Chrome, so i don't know if it has a picture-in-picture player. But if it doesn't, you are really living in the past. It's so incredibly convenient.

p.s.: I googled, there is an extension that does the same for Chrome, but not natively.

Timber-6539
2 replies
4h0m

You don't need any extension to activate PiP in Chrome. It is a native feature just like it is on Firefox.

kome
1 replies
3h38m

Other commenters suggest otherwise, perhaps it depends on the platform?

Timber-6539
0 replies
3h28m

PiP works the same for me on both browsers. You would have to ask them what they are not doing correctly.

wccrawford
1 replies
4h27m

I thought that feature was pointless when I first learned of it, but I've found myself using it from time to time. It often gets in the way of whatever else I'm doing, but it's generally pretty easy to work around.

It's no substitute for a second monitor, but it's better than nothing sometimes.

input_sh
0 replies
4h20m

I recently stumbled upon some content with a horrible JavaScript watermarking abomination slapped on top (https://www.vdocipher.com/). They basically overlay the video player with random white strings that are just prominent enough to be annoying.

One click of the picture-in-picture button and those watermarks were completely gone.

loloquwowndueo
0 replies
2h34m

Dunno that I’d find much use in that. Either you’re watching the video (in which case you don’t want other crap distracting you) or you’re not (in which case you don’t want the video in a corner distracting you).

Maybe I’m just from an older “I can only do one thing at a time lol” generation.

efilife
0 replies
4h13m

I am pretty sure chrome supports PIP and I fiddled with it using JS but for some reason it's not on by default

charcircuit
7 replies
4h28m

Gecko is my least favorite feature of Firefox because it doesn't properly handle websites like github where it doesn't show the full page forcing you to reopen the page in a new tab and close the bugged one. If Firefox doesn't have the resources to properly handle common sites they should just I switch to Blink to leverage a better maintained browser engine. It would also let Firefox invest more resources into differentiating their browser instead of just doing duplicate work.

mariusor
3 replies
2h48m

I'll take your comment at face value, but implying that alternate rendering engines is just "duplicate work" instead of providing one of the few ways to fight against the full monopoly on the web by Google is plainly absurd.

charcircuit
2 replies
2h7m

instead of providing one of the few ways to fight against the full monopoly on the web by Google is plainly absurd.

Firefox becoming a better browser and gaining market share is what will fight against a monopoly. Whether Firefox does that while using Gecko or some fork of Blink it doesn't really matter.

mariusor
1 replies
2h0m

I fail to see how monopoly is avoided by using a Google driven rendering engine.

charcircuit
0 replies
1h47m

Because that rendering engine is open source. This means whoever is shipping the browser has control over it.

sylvestre
2 replies
4h20m

Would you have more details to share? I don't experience such issues on github. Clue: do you have some unusual addons which could change the behavior of Firefox?

charcircuit
1 replies
4h15m

I've only hit it on mobile and I've hit it on a few other sites and trying with Chrome, the full page renders everytime. The only addon I have is ubo.

sylvestre
0 replies
4h6m

it would be nice if you could open a bug https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ with a screen recording and/or step to reproduce.

(I am a big user of Github on Firefox for android and I can't reproduce) thanks

throwaway4PP
6 replies
4h19m

On desktop, FF supports the best vertical nested tab tree I have seen. What I’ve seen on chrome is laughably amateurish with huge chunks of wasted space due to unmodifiable(?) padding elements

efilife
4 replies
4h14m

Extension name?

thworp
1 replies
3h50m

Tree style tabs is more stable and performant but also has a few nice addons (TST Colored Tabs being one of my favs). Sideberry can be infinitely customized but I found it to be extremely slow with 100+ tabs across multiple windows.

quesera
0 replies
2h33m

5233 Sidebery tabs here, in a single window/profile. Multiple Sidebery "panels". I am simultaneously running a few other Firefox instances with their own Sidebery extensions and at least hundreds of tabs each.

I will not defend this use model to any skeptics, but FWIW I have no performance issues!

Sidebery lets you set colors on tabs explicitly, or by pattern. I use this sparingly but it's very useful when I do.

sojournerc
0 replies
3h43m

Not sure about GP, but I use sidebury and am happy with it

ChoGGi
0 replies
4h5m

Tree style tab or Sidebery?

cangeroo
6 replies
4h24m

How can we as users provide funding for open software like Firefox, in the same way that Wikipedia receives crowdfunding?

At the very least as a supplement to the money they receive from Google.

And even better, to fund more research projects, like their sponsorship of research into Rust and WebAssembly.

gobip
1 replies
3h59m

The salary for the CEO of Mozilla is 6.9 million USD (almost 7 million). They fired developers to save money, and put all the money saved into the CEO's salary. I don't see Mozilla getting better anytime soon.

https://www.reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/18b6tdp/mozilla_c...

OJFord
0 replies
2h32m

Most recent layoffs (i.e. what I can easily search for) was 250 heads, just for easy numbers if we say they were all (or on average) earning $100k, then if they got rid of the CEO position entirely.. Mozilla could've kept 69 of them and only laid off 181 (plus CEO).

drpossum
1 replies
3h53m

Mozilla is poorly managed with an overcompensated CEO that likes to sprawl off in directions no one asked for that aren't Firefox

skiman10
0 replies
2h36m

Is this still a valid complaint since they have a new interim CEO? I think we should wait and see what Laura Chambers does and then the new pick after this year.

lelanthran
0 replies
2h52m

You can't support FF. You can only give money to Mozilla, who may or may not use it for FF.

In actual practice, Mozilla grabs all the donations intended for FF and pools it with all donations, which then gets used for social justice programs.

Ayesh
6 replies
4h27m

I'm glad to see posts like this. Some of my favorite features not mentioned in the article:

- User Styles: I can customize pretty much everything about the browser UI using CSS.

- Containers: Shared history, form data, bookmarks,etc. But containerized cookies.

- Separate search field next to the address bar.

SilasX
2 replies
3h54m

I can customize pretty much everything about the browser UI using CSS.

Not the controls, though. For that you’d need Firefox 2016.

aembleton
1 replies
2h41m

Which controls do you want to remove? Can't you do that through the customize toolbar? I'm removing the toolbar and the sidebar header with the following userChrome:

  /* to hide the native tabs */
  #TabsToolbar {
      visibility: collapse;
  }

  /* to hide the sidebar header */
  #sidebar-header {
      visibility: collapse;
  }

SilasX
0 replies
1h59m

I didn't ask to remove controls. I referred to customizing controls to the level you could as of Firefox 2016. Or like you could do in Super Metroid (1992). For example, if I want shift-J to move to the left tab, and shift+K to move to the right.

As of now, extensions can kind of customize this like before, they just don't do it in a fully general way (like you'd get from a supported settings feature). The extensions will only apply after a given tab's page has loaded. So if I want to go left three tabs, I will get stuck on any tab which needs to reload, or doesn't have a page loaded, or any number of exception.

So, bottom line, I can't customize controls in a general sense anymore.

myfonj
0 replies
4h2m

This.

Plus worth mentioning that Firefox has native support for real user stylesheets with own origin layer, just as specified by standards. It is userConent.css file in the "chrome" folder in the profile directory. Slightly cumbersome compared to Stylus' provided "UserCSS" injections, but I think it is super important for any user agent to keep this functionality that is by the way required for CSS2.1+ compliance, and UAAG [1]

And also, to my knowledge, Firefox is one of few browsers that lets you (still) hack its interface ("chrome") through css (userChrome.css in aforementioned folder). [2]

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/2015/NOTE-UAAG20-Reference-20151215/#s... [2] https://twitter.com/myfonj/status/1387584962354982912

RheingoldRiver
0 replies
3h25m

Also bookmarklets!!! I use bookmarklets with keywords to put a ton of functionality into my URL bar, it's probably my favorite part of Firefox

KaiserPro
0 replies
4h2m

Container tabs for me is the killer app. being able to stop google work creeping into my personal youtube is really useful for me

NemoNobody
4 replies
3h28m

Nobody uses Brave??

I've nearly completely switched to Brave - I still use Firefox occasionally but Edge is my second most used Browser.

I haven't used Chrome for over 5 years.

stuff4ben
1 replies
3h11m

Brave is based on Chromium which contributes to the browser engine monopoly.

bad_user
0 replies
2h27m

While I understand why that's a problem, at this point:

1. Firefox's marketshare is completely irrelevant for preventing Chrome's monopoly;

2. Activism doesn't work;

3. Firefox is funded almost entirely by Google's ads, Google can effectively kill it by just pulling the plug, which effectively means that they can't actually compete with Chrome if that means endangering the golden goose — wake me up when Firefox starts blocking some ads in Google's search or on YouTube, out of the box ;-)

willi59549879
0 replies
2h0m

I use the doge at work. But it is even worse than chrome with spying and adware.

bad_user
0 replies
2h25m

I switched from Firefox to Brave. For me, at this point, there's no better option.

I occasionally try Firefox, but it has several issues that annoy me and that have been unfixed for years. They're doing good work, and I hope they'll catch up, but until they fix their management issues, I've lost faith.

ed_blackburn
3 replies
4h7m

How does Firefox work with Google Meet? I'm finding Google Meet gets less and less reliable on Safari on my Mac. What's the point of a web app if it only works on one browser?

dpkirchner
0 replies
2h41m

I use Meet every few days on Firefox while running Windows. Video, audio, screen casting all work well.

deadbunny
0 replies
3h57m

Not used Meet daily for about a year but it worked fine when I was.

aembleton
0 replies
1h59m

I've not experienced any problems using Google Meet on Firefox. A few months ago, you couldn't do some of the features such as a blurred background whilst you could on Chrome. That's fixed now though.

danlugo92
3 replies
4h23m

I'd love to use FIrefox but I haven't found how to get around Google's on-purpose slowing down of their products (which I have to use for work) when running inside Firefox.

sunnytimes
0 replies
3h34m

i get paid by the hour so i don't care if the pages load slower ha

reportgunner
0 replies
4h18m

Use Chrome at work and Firefox everywhere else ?

aspenmayer
0 replies
4h3m

Have you tried spoofing your user agent?

cl3misch
2 replies
2h49m

The user’s data is stored on the browser vendor’s servers, and this data is of course encrypted. But can the browser vendor decrypt this data? Google can.

Can it? You can set an additional password for synchronization. I was under the impression this implies end-to-end encryption.

Of course, Chrome might send this data back to Google once synced and decrypted by the user. But Mozilla might do that just the same.

berkes
1 replies
2h39m

As per the article: this is a trust issue.

Given the approximately same setup and use-case: Who do you trust more to keep encryption strong and unbroken?

OFC trustless verification and such would be my ideal for a very impractical version of "ideal". Where I'd run my own server software, read all it's source code, read all the source code of the client, monitor all my network traffic, and do so for all updates. Given this is unattainable for me (for one: I lack the skills to really vet encryption software), I'll revert to a more practical "I trust Mozilla to at least try and implement secure and proper encryption and to be open about it".

cl3misch
0 replies
2h1m

Yeah, sure. Just writing "Google can" is misleading though.

cardboardmetal
2 replies
4h11m

If only they properly supported PWAs, I would be all in. I like having certain websites in my taskbar and the future is looking like a lot of software is going to be web-based, with the OS becoming a "launcher" for websites if you will (cf. ChromeOS)

thworp
0 replies
3h49m

My solution is to use (ungoogled if you insist) Chromium for PWAs.

Alifatisk
2 replies
4h11m

I use Firefox across all my devices, they are seamlessly synced. To be honest, the sole reason I use FF is because I don't want to be part of Googles monopoly, and because FF just works.

sph
1 replies
2h49m

My killer feature is sharing tabs from my phone to desktop. With Chrome I think it's possible only when logged in to their spy centre, with Safari+Linux it is impossible.

I hate that no one has yet made a third party tab sharing system. I don't think it would be rocket science to have an app you can "share" URLs with which sends it elsewhere. I remember years ago while shopping for browsers that Firefox was the only one with this feature, which boggles the mind. Brave last I tried didn't support it.

bad_user
0 replies
2h30m

> Brave last I tried didn't support it.

Not sure what you mean, but you can click the URL, then click on Share, then select "Send to devices". In a way, it works better than Firefox, because the list of active devices is more up to date. On the other hand, it can have latency, but I noticed latency in Firefox's sharing too.

Also, you can go to the Menu, then click on "Recent Tabs", which will show you the tabs on other devices.

tvbv
1 replies
4h32m

Mozilla keeps ad blockers useful on youtube. And is not a chromium based browser.

relevant xkcd https://xkcd.com/198

danlugo92
0 replies
4h17m

Web3 will kill Chrome (but not Chromium).

thworp
1 replies
3h40m

One of my main reasons for using firefox is Tridactyl [0].

It's the most comprehensive vi-mode addon for a mainstream browser. Support bookmarks, search engines, pagination, external text editing and colorschemes on top of the usual features something like vimium has. It is under active development [1] and written in TypeScript (which is also a plus for hackability in my book).

[0] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tridactyl-vim... [1] https://github.com/tridactyl/tridactyl

mariusor
0 replies
2h54m

I am still bitter over Mozilla's migration off XUL based extensions. Pentadactyl one I'm still missing ten years later. :(

sidcool
1 replies
4h13m

Firefox removed tab grouping for some reason. I think the only feature I miss in FF from Chrome. And Tab group saving.

shultays
1 replies
3h19m

    browser.tabs.closeWindowWithLastTab = false
    prevents the entire browser window from closing when the user closes the last tab (I find this behavior annoying)
I agree so much, I have no idea why that would be default (and why this setting wouldn't be in preferences)

samatman
0 replies
3h14m

What an insight into other people's workflow. I literally can't remember the last time I closed the last tab, it must have been years ago.

I just build up tab groups in windows and occasionally declare bankruptcy on the whole thing and close all of it. So technically that counts as closing the last tab? But it's a housekeeping operation I do maybe four times a year, and usually I'm rebooting the computer so closing the browser is also fine by me. I kill entire groups when I'm done with them but there's always a couple windows which just accrete tabs endlessly, like the one with Twitter pinned.

nayuki
1 replies
4h19m

I use Firefox continuously since year ~2004, when it was called Firebird. The only time I invoke Chrome is to check if a web page is broken on just Firefox or broken for all. I love all the customization options that Firefox allows, unlike the bland and locked-down Chrome.

pesho
0 replies
2h36m

Same and before Firebird it was Phoenix.

mo_42
1 replies
4h10m

I also use Firefox because it allows more customization.

For example, every major browser nowadays not only supports tabbed browsing but enforces it.

I think tabbed browsing is misdevelopment of UX because I need to handle window management on the OS and browser level. I'm using the tabbing feature in sway/i3 so every application has tabs not only browsers and they all act in the same way.

I know that not many people think this way. But that's the whole point. We should be able to tailor software to our needs.

thworp
0 replies
3h44m

I used to do this, but ever since I was forced to boot into windows at work I went back to treestyle tabs everywhere (context-switching became too much). I also never bothered to set up scripts/keybinds for easier managment of deeply nested containers in i3 so moving windows from one tree to another became a keyboard-attack scenario. I have to admit that this one of the things that is nicer to do with a pointing device.

ivanjermakov
1 replies
4h33m

browser.chrome.guess_favicon = false

No more 404s in dev tools for local websites, thanks!

extraduder_ire
0 replies
1h53m

The one thing stopping me from toggling this is the faint concern that it's a vector for fingerprinting. I'm sure it's rare enough that nobody's checking for it though.

earthwalker99
1 replies
4h27m

Does anyone have knowledge of whether we can expect Firefox to get HDR support in the near or distant future?

bad_user
1 replies
2h14m

This article is decent, because at least it tries giving some technical pros of Firefox. Activism doesn't work folks.

To contribute, here's what Firefox does well, from my perspective:

    + History sync actually works — most Chromium browsers don't sync all history;
    + DNS-Over-HTTPS works in parallel to corporate DNS (fallback to system);
    + Tree-style-tabs;
    + Bookmarks management is better;
    + Very nice Reader View (Android & desktop);
    + Ctrl+Tab which actually works;
    + Non-admin upgrades, most of the time, making upgrades on managed laptops less annoying;
    + uBlock Origin, on both desktop and mobile;
    + Total Cookie Protection;
    + Multi-account containers (e.g., second Reddit user);
    + Android: accessibility zoom actually works;
    + Android: multiple search engines;
    + Android: Open in app;
    + Android: Dark reader / Cookie AutoDelete / other extensions;
Unfortunately, it also has issues:

    - They dropped the ball on PWA support — mobile has unfixed bugs, desktop dropped SSB, has trouble keeping up with features [1];
    - Poor performance on Android, known problems when scrolling (e.g., Mastodon, Twitter);
    - incompatibility with online services (e.g., Microsoft Teams), although, granted, they're working hard to remedy that;
    - No customizable keyboard shortcuts, which is surprising for a project that supposedly cares about accessibility;
    - Firefox is still funded almost entirely by Google's search ads, which means they can't actually compete with Chrome;
    - Mozilla has had poor and overpaid management, spending people's donations on political activism, while firing people working on next-gen improvements (e.g., Rust, Servo).
[1]: https://howfuguismybrowser.dev

jwells89
0 replies
2h2m

On the tree style tabs part, I wish Firefox had better hooks for vertical tab extensions (like TST) to use than the multipurpose sidebar. I’ve not once used the sidebar for anything but vertical tabs and it’s a nuisance to have to hide the unnecessarily huge sidebar header with usercss. Letting approved addons hide the default tab strip would be nice too.

It’s not like vertical tabs are that strange of a feature at this point… Vivaldi, Edge, and Orion have them built in and they’re the only option in Arc. I understand why Mozilla might not want to have to deal with maintaining a full vertical tabs feature themselves but at least give extension authors the tools they need.

28304283409234
1 replies
3h19m

Again, Dear Mozilla, please release a paid-for version of Firefox. I have no problem paying for it.

wrasee
0 replies
2h46m

You can always donate.

That approach may even be more tax efficient, too.

wooque
0 replies
2h30m

I switched to Firefox and the main thing that made me stay is that I can actually find stuff in history. Chrome and Chomium based browsers are so bad at history search.

wkat4242
0 replies
2h45m

Yeah I love it too. I use it for everything even mobile. I block not only ads but also images on many news sites so they appear similar to hacker news. Just headlines and nothing else (no i don't like RSS very much for various reasons)

walrus01
0 replies
3h53m

If you use android and haven't done so yet - install firefox and set it as default browser, then install ublock origin as a plugin. The ability to use "full power" desktop firefox plugins on a handheld device is incredibly useful. The mobile browsing experience without a shit flood of ads in everything is remarkably better.

There are a lot of reasons to be concerned about Mozilla and Firefox's revenue based (vastly overbalanced towards money coming in from Google for the default search deal). Without the firefox-google relationship, things would be in a very bad situation revenue wise.

vonBitDiddle
0 replies
4h15m

Duckduckgo browser for Android was the only one I could run on an old Nexus after I lost my reg phone. I kept using it on the new replacement phone and it nicely blocks all embedded social media junk letting you individually select what you want to see like one of those lazy news stories where it's a dozen tweets embedded.

throwaway918274
0 replies
4h4m

Through thick and thin I've always stuck it out with Firefox. Via godawful theme changes, customization and extensions being nerfed, etc... It would have to disappear from the face of the earth before I switch.

tezza
0 replies
2h59m

Pure frivolous anecdote about FF

Whenever I’ve been lucky enough to get Glastonbury tickets it has been on Firefox

When applying I run Chrome as well to cover that base. But for me the Firefox windows are the ones that make it through. YMMV

swader999
0 replies
4h29m

For me it's: about:mozilla

soulbadguy
0 replies
2h37m

I have been mainlining firebox for the 2 to 3 years, mainly because i was concerned about privacy in chrome, and also because i do believe that we need a non chromium based browser for a healthy internet ecosystem. However, the number of website/webpage that do not work, or are worse on firefox is alarming. Especially when talking about internal/entriprise website. Or smaller website

pizzalife
0 replies
1h50m

Firefox 0days are cheap. Don't use Firefox if you care about security.

password54321
0 replies
2h25m

Moved over to Edge. Can turn any PDF into an audio book with its 'Read Aloud' feature and has copilot built in to ask for a summary of any page. Even Bing is good as it has copilot built into search.

nlunbeck
0 replies
4h19m

Still, I like the idea of using a browser from a company that does not want to access my data on their own servers.

Mozilla's motives alone for creating a web browser are why I trust FF. I don't like the idea of Chrome subsisting (to the point it's their actual business model) on my personal info

neverrroot
0 replies
4h28m

Me too, it's my main browser, and the only alternative we have to Chromium/WebKit based browsers.

Many more people should be using it.

miragecraft
0 replies
3h29m

I like Firefox for being able to edit internal CSS stylesheets in the devtools.

Chrome never gained that ability for whatever reason.

mellutussa
0 replies
3h47m

Also, uBlock origin works on Android/Firefox

major505
0 replies
4h11m

This days my response of why still use firefox is, because I`m old and stubborn.

major505
0 replies
4h10m

This days my answer for that is "I`m old and stubborn".

lenerdenator
0 replies
3h5m

Mozilla is one of the last names in the web business that I still have a modicum of trust in. Chrome is essentially spyware at this point. Google built up a fandom among the technorati by contributing to open source during the 00s and 10s, and by arguing that this meant they wouldn't be like 90s/00s Microsoft with coercion of standards and monopolistic practices. Well, they became that kind of company anyways, and too many people still buy into the old "don't be evil" line.

jchw
0 replies
2h10m

I use Firefox. (Specifically Librewolf.) That said...

Google can. Apple claims that they can’t, but they have disclosed user data to law enforcement in the past, so I don’t trust them. Mozilla says that they can’t, and I trust them.

Google does offer end-to-end encryption, with a separate "sync passphrase". I honestly suspect all of the major vendors actually do a good enough job here if you configure things right. Google's UX is crummy for it though, and I think iCloud has at least an optional account recovery feature that you can't really trust. So Firefox Sync is probably winning for user privacy, but it's not due to the lack of proper end-to-end encryption from the other vendors, it seems a bit more complicated than that.

janmarsal
0 replies
2h53m

Firefox is the only browser I know of that lets me hide the close X button from all tabs. Even on firefox it's a pain because you need to fiddle with the useChrome.css. Well, better than other browsers that won't even let you do that.

imadj
0 replies
2h23m

Firefox will win a lot of people over with the android addons now open. It certainly did for me. It seems not well adveritised outside of fans circles who were already following the project and anticipating it.

Firefox now has an edge. If they win mobile, desktop will follow.

idoubtit
0 replies
3h17m

I also use Firefox, as a secondary browser, but the only reason I share with the author is Mozilla's independant web engine. My main reasons for sticking with FF are that I'm distrustful of Google's policies and that I'm influenced by decades of free software lobbying at Mozilla. And the exclusive extension Tree-Style-Tabs, even if it's unstable.

I disagree with most of theirs arguments in favor of Firefox.

1. The about:config page

Even Mozilla does not recommend this. The settings on the about:config page are undocumented and can disappear or change their behavior with any new release.

I used to set a line in "about:config" so that FF always asked before quitting. It stopped working. I checked Firefox's wiki, nothing new. I had to read the source code to understand that the setting was now meaningless: its value was ignored when the setting "restore session" was enabled. The code had evolved, but it was not reflected in the UI. I don't understand why each setting in about:config doesn't have an embedded description.

2. Mozilla cannot decrypt my data on their servers

Same with other browsers, e.g. Vivaldi.

I agree with 4, but I don't care/use 3, 5, 6.

I've met a few sites where Firefox was not welcome (e.g. Jitsi meeting with screen sharing), so I would make it my primary browser only if there was a very strong incentive. But they're too similar to Chromium. Vivaldi with vertical tabs is more stable than Firefox with TST, so I won't switch any time soon.

grimgrin
0 replies
3h14m

A firefox thread

Lately I tell people about about:about because I had only recently learned of it. Maybe you’ll find some use there too

frizlab
0 replies
4h10m

Apple claims that they can’t, but they have disclosed user data to law enforcement in the past, so I don’t trust them. Mozilla says that they can’t, and I trust them.

Ok, I guess?

Personally I don’t trust anybody, I just recognize I have to give my data to someone at some point (don’t have the time to setup everything needed in order not to…). I’ve chosen Apple (gougle is out of the question because I actively distrust them), but I don’t particularly trust them…

flkiwi
0 replies
2h23m

I have tried, oh how I've tried. But the vertical tab options on Firefox are just not very good compared to the disappointingly elegant Edge implementation (with something either identical or very similar used by Brave). And, for me, with the sheer amount of work I do in a browser, the base interface is a huge concern.

I've been a fan since the Firebird days--which I wish they'd been able to stick with because the antisocial fox still irritates me in a very low-key, unserious way--but the browsing experience is not modern, and the extension-based solutions are ... functional. Every few months I check again to see if one of them has improved, and I try them, and I switch back quickly. Which leaves me feeling disappointed in myself, but there you go.

dmos62
0 replies
1h42m

If only Firefox on Android had keyboard shortcuts so that tablet + hardware keyboard would be a comfortable way to use Firefox. Argh.

dinkleberg
0 replies
4h19m

Maybe I'm just fooling myself, but the main reason I use firefox and linux and a bunch of other FOSS tools is that they feel like a gift. There is no ulterior motive. Just honest to goodness software that makes your life better.

I also like paying for software and content. When people provide you with valuable tools, they should get compensated.

But, the middle ground of "free" but not free is not a happy place in my mind.

diggan
0 replies
4h25m

Containers for isolation between sites + treestyletabs (vertical tab bar) are the two features that makes me miss Firefox every time I try a different one. Other features are just a plus on top of that for me.

dekatron
0 replies
2h38m

Picture-in-picture in Firefox is super useful when having a video call and sharing the screen at the same time, especially on a laptop screen.

Firefox lets you pop out the video feeds of call participants, so you can have them in a corner when sharing a full-screen window.

binkHN
0 replies
1h50m

I love the reader view of Firefox; it's the best implementation and makes all the "web crap" go away to focus on content. Chrome had a good implementation of this hidden behind flags, but they recently neutered this "because ads" and, while Edge does a good job of this as well, Edge is too focused on helping me buy stuff or shoving Bing and related on me.

bell-cot
0 replies
3h51m

It works fine for me, and I figure that Mozilla will do less crappy stuff than Alphabet or MS.

Also, if you say you don't like this - corporate monopoly ==>> corporate abuse of monopoly - then how about a bit of action, to go with your words?

Ygg2
0 replies
3h36m

I use Firefox with the excellent https://github.com/black7375/Firefox-UI-Fix I discovered on HN.

I wish that Mozilla didn't bungle the UI for no reason, but here we are.

RedShift1
0 replies
4h27m

Ok that was always allowed.

PaulKeeble
0 replies
3h37m

We need an alternative to Chrome if nothing else to stop the full blown enshittification of the browser. Its more private, it has better extensions and its not treating its users like sources of data. More people should use Firefox there are lots of reasons not to use Chrome now.

MichaelRo
0 replies
4h19m

I use it on Ubuntu coze it happens to be the default browser and there's nothing wrong with it.

On Windows I install Chrome, though. Android usually comes with Chrome as well so I stick with that. Only some apps seem to open the "built in" Xiaomi browser which is a piece of crap almost as stinky as Facebook app, which again absolutely must use it's terrible own browser implementation if I happen to click on some link (which I learned not to because of how terrible the experience is).

Also I use Firefox for web development tutorials because of the Mozilla docs: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Guid...

LegitShady
0 replies
4h0m

I've been using firefox for the last 3 years or so and its mostly been flawless. I can't complain.

OP reminded me to appreciate them, so I donated to mozilla. Mozilla, please don't spend my donation funding stupid shit. Your core product deserves the most love.

AlienRobot
0 replies
2h35m

Why I use Vivaldi: workspaces and vertical tabs let me pretend I don't have a tab hoarding problem.

I know I could probably have this on Firefox with some extension, but I don't like the concept of extensions.