Mozilla/Firefox discussion

Hey everyone. I switched (back) to Firefox mainly for the 2 following reasons:

1- Thought it I would have an easier time managing a browser that usually comes by default on most Linux distros, so since I thought of coming back to Linux full time, I thought this was sensible to do.
2- I didn’t want to keep using a Chromium based browser, if possible. (I used Edge before, for convenience and Msft shit aside, it was a good browser generally speaking).

I just got recommended this video about Mozilla and some shenanigans. - I could fact check everything just in case but to be honest, I don’t want to. Also don’t have that time and energy. So I thought it would be best to ask some people here that might be more up to date or follow those things closely. Are those things stated true?

There’s also this community post thread since a year and a half ago which I follow and have participated in so far about “tab grouping” feature being requested but not implemented and basically complete silence for a long long time from the dev team.

These things are kind of making me reconsider keep using Firefox at all because it feels it’s all for nothing. And I would dislike it because for example the mobile version for me works great, and my phone is a Galaxy A22, nothing really that powerful. I also use Ecosia as a search engine. I know their back end is basically Bing, but I made the decision trying to balance goals/values/action over convenience. I thought that basically using Bing isn’t great, but at the same time at least it’s a group of people caring for the environment. It was basically regular Bing that does nothing vs greener Bing (I’m not really an environmentalist I just thought it was a fair motivation to support).

In the light if this new information, if true, using Firefox is not a “fair inconvenience” for values or anything, it’s just an inconvenience. I could see someone making the argument of “Well, you are using Linux at the end of the day, inconveniences are our daily struggle!”. But on that note, say for example in the case of this distro, there’s a lot of great people willing to teach and help, and the team doing the work… you can kind of see it. And having an inconvenience with EndeavourOS, is what having an inconvenience on Linux is usually (but not always) like: gratifying. It’s one of those things where we always “get in trouble” and when we fix it just feels so good. But Firefox is not making me feel this way. However, I don’t really like Brave (in general) though I do use it for Netflix because of the 1080p extension that is not available for Firefox anymore, and I’m not really keen in using Edge again or things Microsoft related (unless made to by work or whatever if that ever happens). Vivaldi is not open source and is also a bit too much for my personal needs. The list runs dry. I don’t want to use Gnome Web/Epiphany or anything that doesn’t allow me to just “browse”. If I truly had to switch, I guess I would switch to Brave as it’s basically the only alternative in this case.

I want to keep using FF honestly, but the creator of the video said it best on a reply he posted to a comment: “I think that’s a good reason to use Firefox, but it’s hard to convince people to use a browser only as a protest against a monopoly.”.

What are your thoughts? Or maybe you have more information about all of this. I guess the one that hit me the most was the “they get 500m but also receive donations; none of them go towards Firefox”. Like what are they doing with those millions of dollars?

I could read the rest of your long post, but I can’t be arsed now :roll_eyes:


The simple truth is:

There is no good browser.

Mozilla only exists to shield Goolag from anti-trust legislation. Goolag pays for Mozilla’s existence, just so it technically doesn’t have the monopoly. That is Mozilla’s only purpose. That and money laundering…

Mozilla is an utterly incompetent, corrupt, useless, and even harmful organisation. I’m fairly sure that is the main reason why it was chosen by Goolag to be its only “competitor.” For all practical purposes, Mozilla doesn’t even develop software, only a very tiny fraction of its employees are software developers. There is no proof of it, of course, but I strongly suspect that Mozilla just merges patches for Firefox they receive from Goolag.

Firefox is a total mess. Its source code is not modular, you cannot separate the engine from the program. It’s terrible, unmaintainable, unforkable, messy… On the other hand, Chrome is evil.

There is no good browser to choose from. The best you can do is pick what seems to be the least awful choice. For me, that’s some heavily modified Firefox fork, like LibreWolf, with some extensions included (stuff like temporary containers and blocking of all cross-site JavaScript), so hardened that even the basic functionality, like playing a YouToob video does not work (which I find good, such “functionality” is actually harmful).

GNU IceCat is also a not-too-awful option, but finding a reliable binary is difficult, and building it from source code very inconvenient.

Mullvad and Brave are also options to consider, but I don’t find them trustworthy, especially Brave.

And one has to be dangerously foolish to use a proprietary browser, like Vivaldi, Opera, or Edge.

It is unlikely that we’ll ever get a good browser. The modern web is so complex that it is almost impossible to develop a new browser engine that would be compatible with it. Clearly, this is intentional, to create an impossible barrier to entry and protect Goolag’s effective (but technically not true) monopoly. Even Micro$oft gave up on it. The best we can hope is for the web to slowly die, and be gradually replaced by something better. Like Gopher :rofl:

Yeah, it’s not looking good. Gemini is probably the most promising of these alternatives. Maybe one day, we’ll use the GNU Hurd and have a million of native browsers for Gemini to choose from… :rofl:



is a bit of an overstatement :laughing:

There is single huge reason why Firefox is better than other crap, besides being FOSS…And it is fact that it’s base for Tor browser.

Unforkable in any practically useful sense. Sure there are hundreds of Firefox “forks” but they are all just Firefoxes. You can’t use the Gecko engine to make a browser, like you can with Chromium.

The best you can do is take Firefox, disable some malicious and harmful parts of its code and compile it to get a crippled version of Firefox, which you call a “Fork”. You can’t do anything with that fork. You can’t maintain it. For the next version, you take “vanilla” Firefox, apply the same modifications and call it the next version of your “Fork”. That’s not a true fork, that’s more like really long, tall tree with really stubby branches. A true fork happens once, and then continues the life on its own, independent of the shared ancestor.

This is what I mean by “unforkable”.


Yeah under such angle - any browser is unforkable in any meaningful sense, it’s way too complex task for even big organizations. :+1:

With Chromium the situation is different, because it is modular, properly written software. While you cannot fork Chromium itself, you can make new browsers using it. And you can also use its components independently, for example, you can also use V8 JavaScript engine outside Chromium (that’s basically what Node.js is, for example).

I use Librewolf these days. It is basically just hardened Firefox without Mozilla annoyances.

If you don’t care about privacy part and want it render fast as vanilla Firefox you can just make override.cfg like this:

// Do not delete history and cookies after shutdown
defaultPref("privacy.clearOnShutdown.history", false);
defaultPref("privacy.clearOnShutdown.downloads", false);
defaultPref("privacy.clearOnShutdown.cookies", false);

// ** Privacy part **
// If you wan't more privacy delete or edit lines below.

// Eneble webgl:
defaultPref("webgl.disabled", false);

// Disable RFP (Resist Fingerprinting):
defaultPref("privacy.resistFingerprinting", false);

// Enable Google Safe Browsing
defaultPref("browser.safebrowsing.malware.enabled", true);
defaultPref("browser.safebrowsing.phishing.enabled", true);
defaultPref("browser.safebrowsing.blockedURIs.enabled", true);

1 Like

If that were true, why would one prefer LibreWolf over plain old Firefox?

This has become interesting, I will wait for more replies until forming a final opinion.

On the note of “proprietary”, why does that matter at this point? This is the part where I get confused - If Mozilla is just a cop-out for Goolag (loved that name lol :rofl: ), and then things like Brave are a bit shady and then we have no real option other than using a browser that will break every other site, then at that point, aren’t we kinda trapped already and might as well use whatever you want/gives you the least problems?
And I don’t think not using YouTube is a proper solution for 90+% of regular people.


I’ve been using chromium based browsers for close to a decade as a daily-driver browser.
If I need better privacy/anonimity I use Librewolf or Tor in a case-by-case approach, and I would have changed to Brave in a second if it wasn’t for their shady marketing and scandals.

And I have to say “I use FF because I don’t want to use Google” is, in my opinion, one of the stupidest arguments I keep hearing and probably the single best reason why we can’t have nice things…

For those who fear Chromium killing the competition, I’m absolutely glad that Chromium killed IE. Not because I don’t like competition and having choices as a consumer, but rather because IE was plainly an abomination.

You don’t block monopolies by keeping bad products on a lifeline.
You block monopolies by introducing good products!

Firefox is a bad product (which is only alive as Google’s anti-trust pawn), superior only against the days of IE and maybe safari (aka the new IE).
I think @Kresimir summed up nicely many of the problems with Firefox.

For me, my best hopes for the future are for the Rust lang community to come up with a new engine and product. Similar to how System76 called out the bullshit that Gnome is, rolled their sleeves up, and are starting over.

1 Like

What do you mean by if? Is there any use case where spyware is acceptable?

I like Gecko’s rendering of text much better than Blink’s. If the code were better structured and more modular, that part of Firefox would be an excellent product. The problem with it is that you cannot separate the browser from the engine, thus, you cannot fork it properly and create browsers based on it. To me, this is obviously intentional. And the non-engine part of Firefox is utter rubbish.

You can’t do that in case of browsers. The browser monopoly is just a manifestation of a bigger problem: the monopoly of the web, which is effectively owned by Goolag. Unless they royally screw up, we will never again have a standard-compliant 3rd party browser – the standards will make sure we don’t. They can get bloated up as much as it is necessary to prevent a newcomer from entering the market.

Ha! Ha! That’s a good one. Very funny! :wink: :+1:

There was a time when Internet Explorer was a monopoly, keep dreaming. :grinning:

I agree, first you care about security, then it depends on how much you want to compromise regarding privacy/anonymity for browsing “smoothly”.

1 Like

I mean I don’t constantly care about privacy enough to inconvenience myself.
Is it sad that having better privacy often comes with inconvenience? Sure. But it still is true.

I’m not saying that those who do consistently care are in the wrong of course.
Everyone should do their own due diligence and make their own decisions according to their own needs.

I mostly agree. But exactly because it’s not modular, you have to judge the entirety of the product…

I don’t agree to that.
In my personal opinion the web is not much different than anything.
We wouldn’t need to care what chromium does with manifest v3 or with the Web Integrity API if we had an excellent product alternative with 40% marketshare.

Let me dream, ok? :joy:

Well, as long as that is the case, Goolag will have a monopoly.

BTW, I watch and listen to YouTube videos every day (probably too much for my own good) I just don’t use a web browser to access it. It’s not a job of a web browser to be a media player. I find more convenient not to use a browser to access YouTube. YouTube’s web player is just awful… People only tolerate it because they don’t know better.

That’s exactly my point… :thinking:
That monopoly was killed with the introduction of a better product.

The point is that Internet Explorer wasn’t a monopoly because it was a good product, but because Micro$oft had a monopoly on the operating systems.

Since Micro$oft was the first to create a monopoly on the web, they didn’t have the experience how to do it properly. So they got into a lot of legal problems. Goolag learnt this lesson from Micro$oft’s mistake.

Goolag already had a search engine monopoly before Chrome was even announced – that’s the only reason why Chrome is now dominant. Back in those days, creating a new web browser was much, much easier. Based on merit alone, Chrome is a pretty crappy browser, by any standard. It’s newer than Internet Explorer, and more powerful, of course, but it’s not fundamentally different from it in any meaningful way. It has all the anti-features of IE: it’s terrible with memory and CPU, bloated, slow, and it’s malware…

In the 1990s, any smart kid who read K&R could make a web browser.
In the 2000s, any multi-billion corporation could make a web browser.
In the current year, only Goolag can make a web browser, because they get to define what a web browser is.

The solution is not a new web browser (with more crabs), the solution is to stop using the web. A better alternative to web is necessary, hopefully one that will respect its users’ freedom and privacy. Of course, every big tech company and pretty much every government will do everything in their power to prevent such a thing from ever emerging.

Not sure about this, having ads for Chrome each time people used Google helped a lot, if Netscape had as much promotion the story could be different.

1 Like

I sure accept that the OS monopoly absolutely affected IEs marketshare.
That said I don’t think it is fair to minimize it to that. Considering the state of the internet was at the years of IEs monopoly (discoverability, speed, expense, etc) IE might as well have been the only product on the market. Your argument for example could not possibly explain Netscape’s market share.

While I do agree with many of the points you make, it is difficult to have a serious discussion with you persisting to your biases.
For example Chrome is definitely not slow compared to its competition.
It is probably also the most secure.

Furthermore, I never said I use Chrome. I said I use chromium based browsers.
There’s ungoogled, and there’s thorium and there’s others. So some of your arguments do not even apply.

I’m not trying to be rude, just trying to encourage you to be more open-minded to the conversation :slight_smile:

Addition of an Article on the claims of chromium’s security vs firefox:


  1. I do not claim that this article is a publication of academic quality and of course it shouldn’t be treated as such. I just personally feel it does a good job of discussing the relevant topics and referencing (linking) relevant information

  2. I believe there was a Mozilla project that came after project Fission that more closely resmbled Google’s isolation models, but I have not followed its development. If someone is aware of the name and the specifics of such project please share.

Firefox and Chromium Last edited: March 19th, 2022

Additional sources:


This post is sponsored by mixcase, a handy utility script for online discourse.