This is an interesting and almost ironic comment for an article eulogizing the “not yet dead” Mozilla Foundation. The manifesto is certainly idealistic—it’s a manifesto—but utopian? That sounds...
a handful of Utopian-tinged principles laid out in the famous Mozilla Manifesto.
This is an interesting and almost ironic comment for an article eulogizing the “not yet dead” Mozilla Foundation. The manifesto is certainly idealistic—it’s a manifesto—but utopian? That sounds needlessly sensational to me.
I wonder what this author imagines more realistic ideals to be, when in the same breath he laments the imminent death of the web’s “greatest” guardian. I realize he is not necessarily criticizing the Manifesto, but the irony is absurd. The disappointment surrounding Mozilla involves its apparent failure to uphold these principles, or at least that its actions and choices are contradictory to them. These are principles so many of us evidently value, and the Mozilla crises threatens to jeopardize our ability to realize them—hence the pandemonium that has resulted from all the recent news.
Is there anything utopian about a humane internet?
Thats because an "inhumane" internet is the norm now. Not accepting a total surveillance by google at every turn is utopian and weird. Which isn't odd - had someone explain to me that free health...
Thats because an "inhumane" internet is the norm now. Not accepting a total surveillance by google at every turn is utopian and weird.
Which isn't odd - had someone explain to me that free health care was impossible, utopian and weird; and when I said we have free health care here the person claimed the reason for that was our "ethnically homogeneous society" (wth?). The concept that people dying from easily treated diseases because they're not rich was so normal to that person that any claims that it doesn't have to be like that are waved away with a completely unrealistic, unfounded and absurd counter argument.
This is something that always pops up - the demands for any positive change is seen as unrealistic and fantastic until it isn't. If that's democratic rights, living without a supreme ruler, or an internet without constant surveillance at every move, doesn't matter.
The argument I always hear is that universal healthcare would degrade the quality of care. I think it’s interesting that so many people believe medicine has to be expensive to be of quality, and...
The argument I always hear is that universal healthcare would degrade the quality of care. I think it’s interesting that so many people believe medicine has to be expensive to be of quality, and that if you eliminate competition then doctors would not adequately treat their patients. I guess that kind of mentality you describe is also symptomatic of a society alienated to the notion of cooperation by its survivalist competition ethos. The intersections of all this in the tech world are fascinating, and it seems to me that our technology will be an essential factor in any significant growth we can and should achieve as a society.
:/ What can someone not from programing background do to help Mozilla?
Wishing you could offer your support? You can donate to the Mozilla Foundation, but due to the way the corporation is set up, none of this money is invested in Firefox or developer tools. If you have the skills and time, the best possible support is to join the Mozilla community and contribute to their code base.
:/ What can someone not from programing background do to help Mozilla?
I'd say evangelize. Firefox is still a great browser, and there's nothing wrong with using it as your daily driver. Encourage web devs to test their websites with it, and report bugs if you find any.
I'd say evangelize. Firefox is still a great browser, and there's nothing wrong with using it as your daily driver. Encourage web devs to test their websites with it, and report bugs if you find any.
If you don’t have a tech background: this might sound like you’re just annoying the developers. But especially in small projects it’s insanely useful to have people report bugs. Just make sure...
report bugs if you find any
If you don’t have a tech background: this might sound like you’re just annoying the developers. But especially in small projects it’s insanely useful to have people report bugs. Just make sure they are reproducible: list the steps you took to find the bug. And list the device/browser/os you’re using.
Don’t just say ‘I get an error’ but say how you get it. If you’re not sure: any report is better than no report, in my opinion.
Especially because it’s so hard to find some bugs.
I started my contribution to most of the open source projects by opening issues, and telling them what went wrong.
I’ll later update this post with examples and maybe elaborate further (I’m on mobile now)
In case someone feels that they don't know enough about the error to contribute a quality error report, they can just head to mozilla's matrix chat at https://chat.mozilla.org/ and start a...
In case someone feels that they don't know enough about the error to contribute a quality error report, they can just head to mozilla's matrix chat at https://chat.mozilla.org/ and start a discussion there.
Thank you for the guidelines. My bug reports are exhaustive because I understand the frustration of someone pointing out an error in your work but no additional information about it. Helping...
Thank you for the guidelines. My bug reports are exhaustive because I understand the frustration of someone pointing out an error in your work but no additional information about it. Helping someone understand what it takes to make a good bug report is worthwhile.
A bug report is most often about establishing the context of the situation that went wrong: how did it start? how did it proceed? what do you think tipped it over? Insight into the inner machinery of the app helps but is not necessary: as long as you can trace on the map what led you to the bug, the developers will likely be able to find it quickly and deal with it soon.
Thanks. Firefox is already my default and I prefer it over Chrome, however the frequent Captcha are really annoying. I haven't found any problem with Firefox itself, if the webpage look weird but...
Thanks. Firefox is already my default and I prefer it over Chrome, however the frequent Captcha are really annoying. I haven't found any problem with Firefox itself, if the webpage look weird but are fine on Chrome I report them on webcompat.com
Use Firefox, search with Firefox. Subscribe to Mozilla VPN and/or Pocket Premium if you have the means to do so. We also have non-technical roles for interested volunteers. Even something like...
What can someone not from programing background do to help Mozilla?
Use Firefox, search with Firefox. Subscribe to Mozilla VPN and/or Pocket Premium if you have the means to do so.
We also have non-technical roles for interested volunteers. Even something like helping to translate Firefox to other languages is helpful.
I really want to support Firefox financially, and I will probably purchase Mozilla VPN once Linux support is released. But Pocket Premium? I actually like and use Pocket, but I can't believe it's...
I really want to support Firefox financially, and I will probably purchase Mozilla VPN once Linux support is released.
But Pocket Premium? I actually like and use Pocket, but I can't believe it's still proprietary software after all this time. I won't give any money towards a proprietary product run by a company that people are afraid will not survive! That's a time when open source software is particularly important, so that the community has a chance to keep the project alive even if the manufacturer goes out of business. Who do we hold accountable for the continued failure to open source Pocket?
It's really, really hard to open-source a previously closed-source codebase. It's not that nobody wants to do it, but it needs a shitload of work to get into a state where it is ready to be...
It's really, really hard to open-source a previously closed-source codebase.
It's not that nobody wants to do it, but it needs a shitload of work to get into a state where it is ready to be open-sourced. It needs all kinds of reviews:
Once open-sourced, any security flaws in the code become much more apparent. The code needs intensive security reviews prior to release in an effort to ensure that there isn't any "low-hanging" fruit.
Closed-source code may use code licensed from other entities. To open source, that stuff needs to be purged and a new, clean-room replacement needs to be written.
Other IP issues such as potential patent infringement, etc, need to be looked at.
Other potential issues, like private information that should not be released publicly, offensive comments in the code, etc, need to be purged.
All of this needs review and signing off by lawyers.
It's not that nobody wants to do it, or that anybody is actively preventing it; it's just that the process is long and difficult.
OK, it is a long and difficult process. Do they still actually intend to open source Pocket? Is there a roadmap? Are they keeping the community updated? I consider this to be important given they...
OK, it is a long and difficult process. Do they still actually intend to open source Pocket? Is there a roadmap? Are they keeping the community updated?
I consider this to be important given they are now charging for Pocket, and paying for Pocket seems to be one of the few ways to support Firefox. I shouldn't have to pay for proprietary software in order to support a crucial piece of open source infrastructure, so I would like Mozilla to give me some reasons to trust that they will open source Pocket in the future.
You might want to try https://github.com/NilsIrl/MozWire if you can't wait for the Linux app. I tried it and it works. It's a bit inconvenient, sure but I'll take it for now.
You might want to try https://github.com/NilsIrl/MozWire if you can't wait for the Linux app. I tried it and it works. It's a bit inconvenient, sure but I'll take it for now.
Doesn't it work to just simply add it to NetworkManager? I apologise if this is a silly question, but while I am not very familiar woth advanced VPN, I always found it odd why you need a separate...
Doesn't it work to just simply add it to NetworkManager?
I apologise if this is a silly question, but while I am not very familiar woth advanced VPN, I always found it odd why you need a separate app to connect.
Well, yeah, you load the config file in NetworkManager but the problem is... Mozilla doesn't give you the config files which is exactly what MozWire does so it's needed until Mozilla either gives...
Well, yeah, you load the config file in NetworkManager but the problem is... Mozilla doesn't give you the config files which is exactly what MozWire does so it's needed until Mozilla either gives us the config files itself or it gives us a Linux app.
I still love the idea behind the Mozilla Foundation, but I'm pretty disgusted with entity known as the Mozilla Foundation. I switched to Firefox everywhere back in January of 2018 because the...
I still love the idea behind the Mozilla Foundation, but I'm pretty disgusted with entity known as the Mozilla Foundation. I switched to Firefox everywhere back in January of 2018 because the privacy invasive nature of the Chromium ecosystem along with Google's growing strangehold on the web ecosystem horrified me as a web developer.
But the multiple layoffs this year, specifically the one last week finally broke me on Mozilla. There have been a lot of screw ups and idiocy that I've turned a blind eye to over the last few years, but they basically kneecapped the future of Firefox and told us that cynical half-baked products like Firefox VPN were the future we had to look forward to.
So yeah, that's going to be a no for me dawg. I switched to UnGoogled Chromium on my Linux desktops (my primary platform), New Edge on my Windows desktops (typically only used for dev testing and software downloads) and Bromite on my Android devices.
I see this sort of sentiment on r/firefox a lot and it always sounds to me like cutting off the own nose to spite the face. It just seems a bit much to disagree with Mozilla's business decisions,...
I see this sort of sentiment on r/firefox a lot and it always sounds to me like cutting off the own nose to spite the face. It just seems a bit much to disagree with Mozilla's business decisions, pretty much all of which that don't compromise on their values or goals, and then acting on that disagreement by reframing those decisions into a totally different context as justifcation to abandon Mozilla completely in favour of a smattering of other products that have worse futures and potentials.
Well said. I've noticed the same trend. I'm a big fan of both Chromium and Firefox browsers. However, they're both better when there's a competitor that's continually innovating. The best ideas...
Well said. I've noticed the same trend.
I'm a big fan of both Chromium and Firefox browsers. However, they're both better when there's a competitor that's continually innovating. The best ideas propagate, and it helps ensure that web standards remain a group effort.
I hate to see Mozilla struggling like this. Every time they try a new revenue stream, their community reacts sharply. If even something like Pocket's existence is enough to turn most people off, then I don't know what they can possibly do to recover.
It's a matter of acceptance. At some point, even the most dedicated soldier has to lay down their arms in the face of defeat. Mozilla has lost and by extension so have we. I understand that a lot...
It's a matter of acceptance. At some point, even the most dedicated soldier has to lay down their arms in the face of defeat. Mozilla has lost and by extension so have we. I understand that a lot of people aren't ready to make that leap yet, but my time is here.
I won't cling doggedly to a lost cause. I'd rather find a way to live in the real world than play pretend.
But what do you gain exactly by abandoning a "lost cause". What Chrome offers that Firefox doesn't? Does Ublock origin (and other adblockers) works flawlessly with Chromium?
But what do you gain exactly by abandoning a "lost cause". What Chrome offers that Firefox doesn't?
Does Ublock origin (and other adblockers) works flawlessly with Chromium?
As someone who's done pretty much the same switch, I figured I might chime in. (Ungoogled) Chromium on Linux seems to be an overall smoother experience. In my opinion, Firefox on Linux isn't...
As someone who's done pretty much the same switch, I figured I might chime in.
What does Chrome offer that Firefox doesn't?
(Ungoogled) Chromium on Linux seems to be an overall smoother experience. In my opinion, Firefox on Linux isn't particularly well optimized - it's had a habit of running my laptop fans on the moment I load up a content-heavy (read: news) site or exceed 10+ tabs. In contrast, I've only observed Chromium to use my fans when working with ridiculous pieces of Javascript or WASM blobs.
It also doesn't hurt that Chromium offers native Linux integration with GTK by default.
uBlock Origin (and other adblockers)
Like the other commentator mentioned below, the Manifest v3 proposal hasn't landed in Chromium and likely won't for a while, but once / if it lands that may be a compelling reason to switch back to Firefox, or some other browser.
I am using the exact same extensions with UnGoogled Chromium that I was using with Firefox with the sole exception of Containerize, but that's because Chromium doesn't have containers. I'm using...
I am using the exact same extensions with UnGoogled Chromium that I was using with Firefox with the sole exception of Containerize, but that's because Chromium doesn't have containers. I'm using SessionBox instead of that so that I can segregate certain sites in a very limited context. It works decently enough, but its not nearly as awesome as FF Containers were with Containerize.
Other Extensions:
Dark Reader
uBlock Origin
uMatrix
ProxySwitchyOmega
Bitwarden
Anyway, I still can't see the argument that using Firefox is not living in the real world. The browser is faster, manages memory better, is more privacy friendly, more customizable.
The same argument could be said about desktop Linux. It's market share is really low. We know what the competition did to become a monopoly (Microsoft and Google). It does not reflect the quality of Linux or Firefox.
Why is Firefox a lost cause and desktop Linux not?
Those changes haven't actually been implemented yet so currently ad blockers in Chromium based browsers work just fine. Nevertheless, the reality here is that Mozilla and, by extension, Firefox is...
Those changes haven't actually been implemented yet so currently ad blockers in Chromium based browsers work just fine.
Nevertheless, the reality here is that Mozilla and, by extension, Firefox is dying. One day they will both be dead. When that day comes, I'm not going to be left out in the cold because I didn't take the time to figure out how to survive in a post-Firefox world.
You say like changing browsers is like learning to be a survivalist in the forest... Didn't you use Internet Explorer in the past? It will be just fine. Nobody needs to learn how to survive anything.
You say like changing browsers is like learning to be a survivalist in the forest...
Didn't you use Internet Explorer in the past? It will be just fine. Nobody needs to learn how to survive anything.
You do actually. Moving from Firefox to Chromium is a huge change, especially if you are dependent on features like Firefox Containers (which I was). In addition as you pointed out, Chromium will...
You do actually. Moving from Firefox to Chromium is a huge change, especially if you are dependent on features like Firefox Containers (which I was). In addition as you pointed out, Chromium will likely eventually gimp ad-blockers as well which will necessitate even more accomodation on the part of end users.
Switching from Netscape to IE and from IE to Firefox and from Firefox to Chrome back in the day were relatively simplistic tasks. Browsers today are far more complex creatures. Managing your privacy is a far more complex task. Switching browsers is no easy task for somebody who actually really makes use of some of the higher end features in their current browser. You'd be well advised not to underestimate the effort required to do so.
Or at the very least, give it a try and see how hard it actually is.
I've actually done this many times in the last few months switching from Firefox to GNOME Web and back. It's really not that hard. Or well, not for me. I just need adblocking and that's it....
Or at the very least, give it a try and see how hard it actually is.
I've actually done this many times in the last few months switching from Firefox to GNOME Web and back. It's really not that hard. Or well, not for me. I just need adblocking and that's it. Containers are a bonus but not needed for me. That said, I suppose I'm not a very complicated web user.
I feel like you're asking the impossible of Mozilla. With the price of their search deal with Google dropping every year, how are they supposed to fund the development of Firefox without paid...
I feel like you're asking the impossible of Mozilla. With the price of their search deal with Google dropping every year, how are they supposed to fund the development of Firefox without paid services like their VPN and Pocket?
It's not the paid services I'm objecting too, but the dismal quality of said services. For example there is no viable reason to purchase Firefox VPN over Mullvad other than a very small difference...
It's not the paid services I'm objecting too, but the dismal quality of said services. For example there is no viable reason to purchase Firefox VPN over Mullvad other than a very small difference in price (pennies) due to exchange rates. Mullvad is far more capable out of the box than Firefox VPN.
Here's an idea: Charge people for Firefox Sync. That's a valuable service that requires Mozilla to provide cloud capacity. Charging for it as part of privac centric browser makes perfect sense as it helps to ensure you are the customer rather than the product.
Mullvad is nice and all but its market is not your average person. Mozilla has a much bigger brand to do this. The apps are also simplified to accomplish this. Charging for FFSync would never fly....
Mullvad is nice and all but its market is not your average person. Mozilla has a much bigger brand to do this. The apps are also simplified to accomplish this.
Charging for FFSync would never fly. The biggest competitor Chrome's sync is free. You'd just be making Firefox look worse as an alternative to most people.
Surely you realize with that attitude, Mozilla is screwed, right? But this is why I left: Mozilla can't win whether its due to their own fumbling or Google poisoning the stream everybody drinks...
Surely you realize with that attitude, Mozilla is screwed, right? But this is why I left: Mozilla can't win whether its due to their own fumbling or Google poisoning the stream everybody drinks from.
Charging for Sync makes sense from my perspective. As an end user it gives me assurance that they are offering this service because the price they are charging makes it profitable to do so, not because the data I'm giving them is profitable to mine.
I realize that distinction is hard to market, but there is no shortage of irony in the parallel between IE being given away for free and Netscape dying to Google giving everything away for free and Mozilla dying. No shortage at all.
It won't to most people and they can't risk jeopardizing Firefox. But this is already the case. The sync data is encrypted and we can prove that :/ But Netscape always made money from entreprise,...
Charging for Sync makes sense from my perspective.
It won't to most people and they can't risk jeopardizing Firefox.
As an end user it gives me assurance that they are offering this service because the price they are charging makes it profitable to do so, not because the data I'm giving them is profitable to mine.
But this is already the case. The sync data is encrypted and we can prove that :/
irony in the parallel
But Netscape always made money from entreprise, how are they comparable? Consumers never paid for a browser and if Mozilla did that, there is a high chance people would just move to Chrome because it does do that for free.
IMO they should focus on entreprise and consumer products unrelated to their browsers. Also, make Lockwise paid but make it better. It's too barebones for now.
Netscape actually was attempting to sell it's browsers to end users. It was Microsoft making IE free that forced them to make their own browser free. This is literally the oldest anti-competitive...
Netscape actually was attempting to sell it's browsers to end users. It was Microsoft making IE free that forced them to make their own browser free. This is literally the oldest anti-competitive monopolist trick in the book:
Jan. 30, 1998 6:15 p.m. PT
Now that Netscape Communications (NSCP) no longer charges for its flagship browser, it has decided to cut prices on its retail products and compensate retailers for any losses incurred.
Just as a datapoint about why brand matters: I don’t use a VPN but it’s my understanding that the toughest part is finding someone trustworthy. As far as I know, there is no way to verify a VPN’s...
Just as a datapoint about why brand matters: I don’t use a VPN but it’s my understanding that the toughest part is finding someone trustworthy. As far as I know, there is no way to verify a VPN’s servers yourself. This is the first I’ve heard of Mullvad so if for some reason I needed a VPN I would try Firefox or maybe Cloudflare, since I know who they are. (Or at least I think I do.)
The fact that Firefox is really just reselling Mullvad services though should be evidence enough to demonstrate why name alone isn't enough ;) As for how I found Mullvad, some VPN related...
The fact that Firefox is really just reselling Mullvad services though should be evidence enough to demonstrate why name alone isn't enough ;) As for how I found Mullvad, some VPN related subreddit or another had a link to a Google Docs spreadsheet that had every known VPN service listed and all of their associated properties. I was using PIA at the time, but I really wanted a Wireguard capable service among other things. Mullvad quickly became a top tier option. Other current users seemed to love it and I've been very pleased.
Yeah, good to know, but Firefox’s endorsement still helps there. I don’t see how ordinary users on Reddit are in any position to judge a VPN’s security. They are going to judge based on features....
Yeah, good to know, but Firefox’s endorsement still helps there.
I don’t see how ordinary users on Reddit are in any position to judge a VPN’s security. They are going to judge based on features. I presume Firefox got special access to do a security audit? But that’s just an assumption I’d want to look into.
Mullvad has paid for audits multiple times. Audit 1 Audit 2 They worked towards open firmware for their servers Their programs are also all GPLv3 so that part can easily be audited by anyone....
Their programs are also all GPLv3 so that part can easily be audited by anyone.
They've been working on Wireguard and have been the first (or maybe one of the first firsts) to ship it. (see here why this is a good thing.
They accept cash and bitcoin.
They've helped fix OpenVPN security issues in the past (which might also be why they've been wanting to use Wireguard more) :
April 2014 – We swiftly assess and mitigate the Heartbleed vulnerability and then prove our hypothesis of its critical impact on OpenVPN.
September 2014 – We demonstrate that OpenVPN is vulnerable to Shellshock, resulting in admin access, and warn our competitors before general disclosure.
This is an interesting and almost ironic comment for an article eulogizing the “not yet dead” Mozilla Foundation. The manifesto is certainly idealistic—it’s a manifesto—but utopian? That sounds needlessly sensational to me.
I wonder what this author imagines more realistic ideals to be, when in the same breath he laments the imminent death of the web’s “greatest” guardian. I realize he is not necessarily criticizing the Manifesto, but the irony is absurd. The disappointment surrounding Mozilla involves its apparent failure to uphold these principles, or at least that its actions and choices are contradictory to them. These are principles so many of us evidently value, and the Mozilla crises threatens to jeopardize our ability to realize them—hence the pandemonium that has resulted from all the recent news.
Is there anything utopian about a humane internet?
Thats because an "inhumane" internet is the norm now. Not accepting a total surveillance by google at every turn is utopian and weird.
Which isn't odd - had someone explain to me that free health care was impossible, utopian and weird; and when I said we have free health care here the person claimed the reason for that was our "ethnically homogeneous society" (wth?). The concept that people dying from easily treated diseases because they're not rich was so normal to that person that any claims that it doesn't have to be like that are waved away with a completely unrealistic, unfounded and absurd counter argument.
This is something that always pops up - the demands for any positive change is seen as unrealistic and fantastic until it isn't. If that's democratic rights, living without a supreme ruler, or an internet without constant surveillance at every move, doesn't matter.
The argument I always hear is that universal healthcare would degrade the quality of care. I think it’s interesting that so many people believe medicine has to be expensive to be of quality, and that if you eliminate competition then doctors would not adequately treat their patients. I guess that kind of mentality you describe is also symptomatic of a society alienated to the notion of cooperation by its survivalist competition ethos. The intersections of all this in the tech world are fascinating, and it seems to me that our technology will be an essential factor in any significant growth we can and should achieve as a society.
Not only is quality of care higher in countries with universal healthcare, wait times and costs are lower, too[1].
[1] https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/
That’s been my experience here in Korea. I paid $0.50 the other day taking my son to the doctor. In and out in 10 minutes.
:/ What can someone not from programing background do to help Mozilla?
I'd say evangelize. Firefox is still a great browser, and there's nothing wrong with using it as your daily driver. Encourage web devs to test their websites with it, and report bugs if you find any.
If you don’t have a tech background: this might sound like you’re just annoying the developers. But especially in small projects it’s insanely useful to have people report bugs. Just make sure they are reproducible: list the steps you took to find the bug. And list the device/browser/os you’re using.
Don’t just say ‘I get an error’ but say how you get it. If you’re not sure: any report is better than no report, in my opinion.
Especially because it’s so hard to find some bugs.
I started my contribution to most of the open source projects by opening issues, and telling them what went wrong.
I’ll later update this post with examples and maybe elaborate further (I’m on mobile now)
Example of a bug report and follow up conversation to a pretty ‘rare’, but if it would happen, very annoying bug: https://github.com/jitsi/jitsi-meet/issues/7514
In case someone feels that they don't know enough about the error to contribute a quality error report, they can just head to mozilla's matrix chat at https://chat.mozilla.org/ and start a discussion there.
Definitely. Nobody is going to be upset with you for filing a bug!
Thank you for the guidelines. My bug reports are exhaustive because I understand the frustration of someone pointing out an error in your work but no additional information about it. Helping someone understand what it takes to make a good bug report is worthwhile.
A bug report is most often about establishing the context of the situation that went wrong: how did it start? how did it proceed? what do you think tipped it over? Insight into the inner machinery of the app helps but is not necessary: as long as you can trace on the map what led you to the bug, the developers will likely be able to find it quickly and deal with it soon.
Thanks. Firefox is already my default and I prefer it over Chrome, however the frequent Captcha are really annoying. I haven't found any problem with Firefox itself, if the webpage look weird but are fine on Chrome I report them on webcompat.com
Use Firefox, search with Firefox. Subscribe to Mozilla VPN and/or Pocket Premium if you have the means to do so.
We also have non-technical roles for interested volunteers. Even something like helping to translate Firefox to other languages is helpful.
https://whatcanidoformozilla.org/
I really want to support Firefox financially, and I will probably purchase Mozilla VPN once Linux support is released.
But Pocket Premium? I actually like and use Pocket, but I can't believe it's still proprietary software after all this time. I won't give any money towards a proprietary product run by a company that people are afraid will not survive! That's a time when open source software is particularly important, so that the community has a chance to keep the project alive even if the manufacturer goes out of business. Who do we hold accountable for the continued failure to open source Pocket?
It's really, really hard to open-source a previously closed-source codebase.
It's not that nobody wants to do it, but it needs a shitload of work to get into a state where it is ready to be open-sourced. It needs all kinds of reviews:
It's not that nobody wants to do it, or that anybody is actively preventing it; it's just that the process is long and difficult.
OK, it is a long and difficult process. Do they still actually intend to open source Pocket? Is there a roadmap? Are they keeping the community updated?
I consider this to be important given they are now charging for Pocket, and paying for Pocket seems to be one of the few ways to support Firefox. I shouldn't have to pay for proprietary software in order to support a crucial piece of open source infrastructure, so I would like Mozilla to give me some reasons to trust that they will open source Pocket in the future.
You might want to try https://github.com/NilsIrl/MozWire if you can't wait for the Linux app. I tried it and it works. It's a bit inconvenient, sure but I'll take it for now.
Doesn't it work to just simply add it to NetworkManager?
I apologise if this is a silly question, but while I am not very familiar woth advanced VPN, I always found it odd why you need a separate app to connect.
Well, yeah, you load the config file in NetworkManager but the problem is... Mozilla doesn't give you the config files which is exactly what MozWire does so it's needed until Mozilla either gives us the config files itself or it gives us a Linux app.
I still love the idea behind the Mozilla Foundation, but I'm pretty disgusted with entity known as the Mozilla Foundation. I switched to Firefox everywhere back in January of 2018 because the privacy invasive nature of the Chromium ecosystem along with Google's growing strangehold on the web ecosystem horrified me as a web developer.
But the multiple layoffs this year, specifically the one last week finally broke me on Mozilla. There have been a lot of screw ups and idiocy that I've turned a blind eye to over the last few years, but they basically kneecapped the future of Firefox and told us that cynical half-baked products like Firefox VPN were the future we had to look forward to.
So yeah, that's going to be a no for me dawg. I switched to UnGoogled Chromium on my Linux desktops (my primary platform), New Edge on my Windows desktops (typically only used for dev testing and software downloads) and Bromite on my Android devices.
So long Mozilla, and thanks for all the fish.
I see this sort of sentiment on r/firefox a lot and it always sounds to me like cutting off the own nose to spite the face. It just seems a bit much to disagree with Mozilla's business decisions, pretty much all of which that don't compromise on their values or goals, and then acting on that disagreement by reframing those decisions into a totally different context as justifcation to abandon Mozilla completely in favour of a smattering of other products that have worse futures and potentials.
Well said. I've noticed the same trend.
I'm a big fan of both Chromium and Firefox browsers. However, they're both better when there's a competitor that's continually innovating. The best ideas propagate, and it helps ensure that web standards remain a group effort.
I hate to see Mozilla struggling like this. Every time they try a new revenue stream, their community reacts sharply. If even something like Pocket's existence is enough to turn most people off, then I don't know what they can possibly do to recover.
It's a matter of acceptance. At some point, even the most dedicated soldier has to lay down their arms in the face of defeat. Mozilla has lost and by extension so have we. I understand that a lot of people aren't ready to make that leap yet, but my time is here.
I won't cling doggedly to a lost cause. I'd rather find a way to live in the real world than play pretend.
But what do you gain exactly by abandoning a "lost cause". What Chrome offers that Firefox doesn't?
Does Ublock origin (and other adblockers) works flawlessly with Chromium?
As someone who's done pretty much the same switch, I figured I might chime in.
(Ungoogled) Chromium on Linux seems to be an overall smoother experience. In my opinion, Firefox on Linux isn't particularly well optimized - it's had a habit of running my laptop fans on the moment I load up a content-heavy (read: news) site or exceed 10+ tabs. In contrast, I've only observed Chromium to use my fans when working with ridiculous pieces of Javascript or WASM blobs.
It also doesn't hurt that Chromium offers native Linux integration with GTK by default.
Like the other commentator mentioned below, the Manifest v3 proposal hasn't landed in Chromium and likely won't for a while, but once / if it lands that may be a compelling reason to switch back to Firefox, or some other browser.
Firefox does this too FWIW. Or well, they both butcher GTK to make it look like it fits a system "theme".
Better that than have a completely unique GTK theme apart from the system.
I'd argue I'd prefer having it with only its own theme rather than this hybrid but that's just me.
I am using the exact same extensions with UnGoogled Chromium that I was using with Firefox with the sole exception of Containerize, but that's because Chromium doesn't have containers. I'm using SessionBox instead of that so that I can segregate certain sites in a very limited context. It works decently enough, but its not nearly as awesome as FF Containers were with Containerize.
Other Extensions:
Dark Reader
uBlock Origin
uMatrix
ProxySwitchyOmega
Bitwarden
Google still crippled adblockers on Chromium. I'm on mobile so can't link more now, but here is one article: https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/chromium-to-weaken-ad-blockers-impacts-chrome-edge-and-brave-browsers/
You can find more easily.
Anyway, I still can't see the argument that using Firefox is not living in the real world. The browser is faster, manages memory better, is more privacy friendly, more customizable.
The same argument could be said about desktop Linux. It's market share is really low. We know what the competition did to become a monopoly (Microsoft and Google). It does not reflect the quality of Linux or Firefox.
Why is Firefox a lost cause and desktop Linux not?
Those changes haven't actually been implemented yet so currently ad blockers in Chromium based browsers work just fine.
Nevertheless, the reality here is that Mozilla and, by extension, Firefox is dying. One day they will both be dead. When that day comes, I'm not going to be left out in the cold because I didn't take the time to figure out how to survive in a post-Firefox world.
Adapt or die.
You say like changing browsers is like learning to be a survivalist in the forest...
Didn't you use Internet Explorer in the past? It will be just fine. Nobody needs to learn how to survive anything.
You do actually. Moving from Firefox to Chromium is a huge change, especially if you are dependent on features like Firefox Containers (which I was). In addition as you pointed out, Chromium will likely eventually gimp ad-blockers as well which will necessitate even more accomodation on the part of end users.
Switching from Netscape to IE and from IE to Firefox and from Firefox to Chrome back in the day were relatively simplistic tasks. Browsers today are far more complex creatures. Managing your privacy is a far more complex task. Switching browsers is no easy task for somebody who actually really makes use of some of the higher end features in their current browser. You'd be well advised not to underestimate the effort required to do so.
Or at the very least, give it a try and see how hard it actually is.
I've actually done this many times in the last few months switching from Firefox to GNOME Web and back. It's really not that hard. Or well, not for me. I just need adblocking and that's it. Containers are a bonus but not needed for me. That said, I suppose I'm not a very complicated web user.
If you can live with Gnome Web, yeah that's a pretty simple use case. I envy you. Greatly.
I strongly disagree with this statement. Why do you think this is the case?
I feel like you're asking the impossible of Mozilla. With the price of their search deal with Google dropping every year, how are they supposed to fund the development of Firefox without paid services like their VPN and Pocket?
It's not the paid services I'm objecting too, but the dismal quality of said services. For example there is no viable reason to purchase Firefox VPN over Mullvad other than a very small difference in price (pennies) due to exchange rates. Mullvad is far more capable out of the box than Firefox VPN.
Here's an idea: Charge people for Firefox Sync. That's a valuable service that requires Mozilla to provide cloud capacity. Charging for it as part of privac centric browser makes perfect sense as it helps to ensure you are the customer rather than the product.
Mullvad is nice and all but its market is not your average person. Mozilla has a much bigger brand to do this. The apps are also simplified to accomplish this.
Charging for FFSync would never fly. The biggest competitor Chrome's sync is free. You'd just be making Firefox look worse as an alternative to most people.
Surely you realize with that attitude, Mozilla is screwed, right? But this is why I left: Mozilla can't win whether its due to their own fumbling or Google poisoning the stream everybody drinks from.
Charging for Sync makes sense from my perspective. As an end user it gives me assurance that they are offering this service because the price they are charging makes it profitable to do so, not because the data I'm giving them is profitable to mine.
I realize that distinction is hard to market, but there is no shortage of irony in the parallel between IE being given away for free and Netscape dying to Google giving everything away for free and Mozilla dying. No shortage at all.
It won't to most people and they can't risk jeopardizing Firefox.
But this is already the case. The sync data is encrypted and we can prove that :/
But Netscape always made money from entreprise, how are they comparable? Consumers never paid for a browser and if Mozilla did that, there is a high chance people would just move to Chrome because it does do that for free.
IMO they should focus on entreprise and consumer products unrelated to their browsers. Also, make Lockwise paid but make it better. It's too barebones for now.
Netscape actually was attempting to sell it's browsers to end users. It was Microsoft making IE free that forced them to make their own browser free. This is literally the oldest anti-competitive monopolist trick in the book:
https://www.cnet.com/news/netscape-cuts-prices-on-retail-products/
Just as a datapoint about why brand matters: I don’t use a VPN but it’s my understanding that the toughest part is finding someone trustworthy. As far as I know, there is no way to verify a VPN’s servers yourself. This is the first I’ve heard of Mullvad so if for some reason I needed a VPN I would try Firefox or maybe Cloudflare, since I know who they are. (Or at least I think I do.)
The fact that Firefox is really just reselling Mullvad services though should be evidence enough to demonstrate why name alone isn't enough ;) As for how I found Mullvad, some VPN related subreddit or another had a link to a Google Docs spreadsheet that had every known VPN service listed and all of their associated properties. I was using PIA at the time, but I really wanted a Wireguard capable service among other things. Mullvad quickly became a top tier option. Other current users seemed to love it and I've been very pleased.
Yeah, good to know, but Firefox’s endorsement still helps there.
I don’t see how ordinary users on Reddit are in any position to judge a VPN’s security. They are going to judge based on features. I presume Firefox got special access to do a security audit? But that’s just an assumption I’d want to look into.
Mullvad has paid for audits multiple times.
Audit 1
Audit 2
They worked towards open firmware for their servers
Their programs are also all GPLv3 so that part can easily be audited by anyone.
They've been working on Wireguard and have been the first (or maybe one of the first firsts) to ship it. (see here why this is a good thing.
They accept cash and bitcoin.
They've helped fix OpenVPN security issues in the past (which might also be why they've been wanting to use Wireguard more) :
Overall, they have a very good record.