[lawrenceyan]

Is there any reason why you should use Firefox over Safari in this case then? How are we defining the "moral superiority" of web browsers here because it all seems to bit iffy to me. Why not use NetSurf if we're really talking, something that's actually open source and not only in name like Mozilla does with Firefox.

[beatgammit]

Safari doesn't work on Android, Linux, or Windows. Firefox works on all platforms I use, plus a few that I don't, so I'll always be able to have bookmarks and whatnot sync across my devices.

And what Mozilla does with Firefox is about as open source as it can be. I'm not really sure what you're referring to here. There are spins that remove bits that some people don't like, which means it's plenty open.

I've tried NetSurf, and while it was cool, it just doesn't do what I want. I really like syncing bookmarks and extensions, and it just doesn't have those features, much less syncing.

[chupa-chups]

Safari doesn't support disabling click tracking anymore:

https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/Safari-link-tracking.htm...

Firefox does this (as well TOR and brave)

[twiceaday]

But Safari ITP is wrecking havoc on the ad-tech industry right now.

[classichasclass]

What's open source "only in name" about Firefox? I like NetSurf and hope it grows, but the MPL seems pretty open source to me. I build the Firefox I use from source on every release on my Talos II.

[tw20190405jxkro]

I agree with your position, especially when you compare it with Safari, which is not open source in any sense. However, all the Pocket features that Firefox integrates with are (still) closed source, even 2+ years after Mozilla spent $29m acquiring them. So the person you're responding to does have some hint of a good point.

Remember:

- Mozilla Corporation is _not_ your friend.

- WebKit is still a viable third-party alternative to both Blink and Gecko.

[yoasif_]

> However, all the Pocket features that Firefox integrates with are (still) closed source

All the integration code is open source. Pocket is a web service that is currently not open source. This is like saying that because Firefox uses Google Safe Browsing, that it is open source in name only because the Google Safe Browsing code isn't open source.

[tw20190405jxkro]

> All the integration code is open source. Pocket is a web service that is currently not open source.

Why are you saying things that I've already said? I think it's because there's misdirection here that will deceive anyone who isn't paying close enough attention to realize that you _aren't_ saying anything different than what I've said.

> This is like saying that[...]

This is such an intellectually dishonest argument. Google Safe Browsing is not a Mozilla-owned and operated service, nor was it ever reported that it would be open sourced. It's also little more than a hashtable of URIs. The extent to which Google Safe Browsing is "integrated" into Firefox is trivial when compared to the level that Firefox is pushing Pocket and pushing out Pocket-related features.

[yoasif_]

>This is such an intellectually dishonest argument.

It doesn't feel that way to me. If you don't like the article recommendations on the new tab page, you can turn them off. You can disable all references to Pocket by setting ```extensions.pocket.enabled``` to false.

You can't do much with Pocket without signing up for a login, aside from reading stories. How is that different from Edge showing stories from MSN on the home page?

Pocket related features are pretty darned minimal, too - there is no sidebar for Pocket built in, the Pocket list doesn't appear in the UI (it just redirects to the Pocket website), there is no keyboard shortcut to save pages to Pocket - there just isn't a lot there.

All that is present is a button in the address bar (that can be hidden) and in page context menus that allow users to save to Pocket. That is the extent of the integration.

So yeah, it doesn't feel all that dishonest to me.

[ocdtrekkie]

Arguably that Firefox is open source, and Safari is not.

[lawrenceyan]

I really think the whole open source designation Mozilla tries to play off of is sort of slimy. Hundreds of millions of dollars regularly funnel through it. I understand the legality of it all and the technical truth to it, but it seems like the spirit of open source really isn't being portrayed that well as compared to a browser like say NetSurf, which I look at and can actually see a group of likeminded hobbyists supporting something they enjoy without money clouding everything over.

[seba_dos1]

That's completely orthogonal to "open source".