cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/68754751
There was a time I chose Firefox over the Chromium browser without a second thought. But nowadays, installing and opening Firefox seems like a time-consuming, very bloated experience.
Too many unnecessary features, promotions, sponsored links, and widgets are filled on the homepage. All the settings are now more complex, and there is a lot to set up after a fresh install.
When I compare modern Firefox with Firefox ESR, I feel like I am using browsers like Vivaldi or Opera instead of Firefox. Seriously, Firefox must consider releasing a browser like Brave Origin (Firefox Origin or something).
Isn’t anybody else frustrated with the new Firefox changes? If yes, what practical solutions exist? Debloat using any script or install any forks (no forks seem to be good; some are outdated, some are too much hardened, some are just not for daily browsing, etc.).
I’m just looking for a browser like Ungoogled Chromium but for Firefox (Unmozillaed Firefox).
No one was calling you a narcissist, read it again.
And my comment had nothing to do with its technical competence.
Have you really not seen any stories related to mullvad recently?
Not my list, a list.
And all of those explanations are the handwaving I mentioned.
Your take on them all seems reasonable if not exactly the same as mine.
In aggregate though they indicate a potential pattern.
My response was specifically to your implication that because their many shenanigans were in the past and nothing was a current problem that they we should only judge them on their current technical competence.
I also noticed you didn’t mention the current CEO and why someone might have an issue with them.
Then you probably aren’t hearing all of what people are actually complaining about.
hint : they aren’t usually complaining about the technical competence.
Also other browsers get plenty of shit, a lot of it justifiable.
All valid, and I agree.
I could list some you haven’t mentioned as well.
I personally use a variant of Firefox that has a whole bunch of questionable shit turned off or removed.
Despite almost all of their recent moves having been to announce some bullshit that actively makes them a worse option for me they are still currently , barely, the least worst option (for my preferences)
And only then it’s mostly because of the variants.
What I was getting at is that playing down the continuous bullshit from these companies weakens your arguments.
It also genuinely seems you don’t see why the non-technical aspects of these companies might be a point of contention for some people.
I wasn’t sure if you were referring to either or both interpretations for Mullvad, so I responded to both versions of what you could mean by that. Based in your last comment I have a feeling I didn’t hear something recent about them, as far as I know everyone still likes them.
I reread the narcissist thing and I’m really not sure what you mean then. Are you calling the Brave CEO a narcissist?
I do see a pattern, which is why I said I don’t fully trust them and why I noted they were controversial in my original comment. The way I see it is basically this: if you are a dyed in the wool tinfoil hat wearing privacy advocate, and actively part of the privacy community, you are probably a little bit crazy. Privacy should be default, but unfortunately we are in the wild west of information exploitation, that’s why you and I have to go out of our way to find private options. For a privacy focused dev, its them vs the world, and in a capitalist economy, you have to find a way to make your product make money, or it has to be a small enough project to not need much. GrapheneOS’s lead dev, for example, is a bit nuts. Do I trust he is competent and trying to do the thing he says he is trying to do, and do I trust putting his OS on my phone over Google? Definitely. Would I be friends with him? No. Brave I trust a little less, but I see them in a similar way: often trying to find a crackpot method to make money off their product so they can stick around.
I can’t say I’m a fan of their CEO. Then again, I can’t say I particularly like any CEO of any company, so I try to support open source projects with the Unix/Linux philosophy of doing one thing good, so I can support small projects that don’t need a CEO. Unfortunately maintaining a browser is not one of the things that can be done the Unix way. It is basically its own OS in some ways, a lot of work, even more so if it is your own engine like Firefox. For companies that I’m forced to choose between, their personal viewpoints are a concern, just not my biggest one, unless they’re like Satan themselves like Larry Ellison or Elon Musk. I’m forced to pay Microsoft for licenses and support at work, and that bothers my conscience more than using a free browser by a guy who didn’t support gay marriage in 2014 before it went through federally, like just about everyone I grew up with, most of whom have since gotten over themselves. Not saying it’s OK or right, just noting that was at least half of Americans back then.
I agree with your assessment that Firefox used to be the default good option and get steadily worse every day. They got have too big of a team so they’re trying to expand, but that goes against their core audience because we just don’t want extra “features”. They aren’t doubling down on what got them here: being a privacy focused browser. They’re trying to be Google, but can’t be because 1. Google exists, And Chromium is still is the best browser engine functionally, which most people care about most, and 2. It will alienate core audience even more. So their strategy is to go slow enough that hopefully we don’t notice or they don’t go bankrupt because they make most of their money from. Google being the default search engine.
Does this make Firefox a stupid option that I’d criticize people for using? No. It is still one of the best options we have, in a world where most of them are bad because a browser project has to have a certain amount of devs and money behind it to keep up with security and maintenance. And I recommended 2 Firefox forks to OP in my original comment. Firefox vs Brave is really just a predictable trending down of “Stop Firefox we don’t like this minor bad change!” “I’m gonna do it anyway” VS “Hey guys what about this?” “WTAF were you thinking Brave?” “Oh, sorry…”
I was referring to a theoretical corporate defence version of the narcissists prayer and was again bitten by my ridiculous expectation that meme/reference knowledge is universal
Specifically your defence of brave sounded to me like this slightly altered version of that prayer
That didn’t happen.
And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.
And if it was, that’s not a big deal.
And if it is, that’s not their fault.
And if it was, they didn’t mean it.
I wasn’t trying to imply you are they were narcissists, only that your reply sounded a lot like that prayer.
ah, again, with my assumptions:
TL;DR; A mullvad founder donated a large amount of money to what is largely considered to be a right wing political party
Here’s a small selection links, should be easy to search once you know what to look for:
Note, there is obviously bias and opinions here, have a look in to the actual details yourself for a full picture.
I agree with all of that up to this part:
If their crackpot experiments are at the expense of the things i care about i’m out, but that’s a personal opinion, not a universal viewpoint.
Again, all reasonable takes up to the end part:
“He’s not as bad as musk and gates, plus everyone of that generation was like that” sounds a lot like an excuse, even if you specifically state that it isn’t.
Agreed
Again, agreed, until the end.
That’s entirely glossing over the nature of the sketchy shit being pulled.
As we said mozilla are just stacking those shitty decisions like they were bricks of gold.
but they haven’t done anything even remotely a sketchy as :
Presenting it like they are doing comparable things is disingenuous at best.