[godelski]

  > or Firefox

Or just use Firefox because even using chromium is empowering Google to keep playing these games. Maybe you have a problem with Firefox (most people won't notice the difference) but is that problem worse that the problem you have with Google?

[motorest]

> Or just use Firefox because even using chromium is empowering Google to keep playing these games.

This. People like to complain about problems, but I wonder why they don't invest half that energy in actually fixing the problems.

> Maybe you have a problem with Firefox (...)

I've started to notice there is a very vocal opposition of Firefox whose common trait is that they actually do not or cannot present any tangible argument against Firefox. They just shit talk about Firefox, and hand-wave their criticism with inane comments like "they lost the boat".

Sometimes I wonder where that absurdity comes from.

[encom]

I have plenty of arguments against Firefox, but engaging in browser holy wars is so tiresome. I used Firefox since before it was called Firefox up until v89 (I think) when I finally had enough. That's when they for the millionth time messed up the UI in new fanciful ways, and removed more features I relied upon daily. It's a pattern going back decades, and the usual tired old argument is, just install this addon to restore the functionality, or add/remove this to userchrome.css, or install whatever from some random Github link. The problem is I first have to spend time and energy finding these things, and then the authors have to keep supporting them in perpetuity. And often it's tiny stupid things like removing "show image" from the context menu, I now have to install an addon for, but it's a feature I use all the time, but their precious telemetry says only 10% (or whatever) of people use it, so it gets axed in the name of minimalism. Inevitably those 10% of users will whine about it on Bugzilla, and inevitably it will be WONTFIXed and comments disabled. I've seen this scenario play out SO MANY TIMES.

I like the idea of Firefox. Not the execution.

After ditching Firefox, I installed Vivaldi, and while it certainly isn't flawless, I can set up every aspect of it how I want, and in the four or so years I've used it - with a few minor exceptions I could revert with in-browser settings - it looks and works exactly how I set it up in 2021.

So in summary, for me it was very much a paper-cuts thing, rather than any single major Mozilla catastrophe.

[motorest]

> I have plenty of arguments against Firefox, but engaging in browser holy wars is so tiresome.

I think you're trying to make up irrational excuses.

If you feel the need to criticise something and be vocal about it, the very least that's expected from you is that you present your basis that sparked your vocal criticism of something.

If you are very vocal to shit talk about something but cannot present any basis supporting your personal opinion or put together a coherent argument, that tells everything to know about what credit should be given to what you feel compelled to say.

> I used Firefox since before it was called Firefox up until v89 (I think) when I finally had enough. That's when they for the millionth time messed up the UI in new fanciful ways, and removed more features I relied upon daily.

Firefox's UI barely changed in over a decade.

The biggest change they rolled out in the last decade was introducing and removing Pocket, and the sidebar and vertical tab support introduced last year.

> It's a pattern going back decades,

Point out exactly what you single out as what you feel represents the best example.

So far you wrote a wall of text and mentioned absolutely nothing that supported such a visceral opinion.

> So in summary, for me it was very much a paper-cuts thing (...)

You mentioned no paper cut. You just wrote a wall of text about nothing. No wonder you shielded yourself behind "browser holy wars" nonsense.

[encom]

>mentioned absolutely nothing

Yes I did, you didn't read a word of my post.

>Firefox's UI barely changed in over a decade.

Blatantly false. Many such cases. https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/fresh-new-look-for-firef...

>irrational excuses

You seem irrationally hostile because I offended your favorite browser.

>best example

The best example is probably their design philosophy which seems to mirror that of Gnome which is, we know what's best for you and you will use our software how we envision because we know better. I didn't keep a list of every Firefox annoyance in preparation of having another pointless internet argument one day, but I mentioned the straw that broke the camels back, and I pointed out how Vivaldi gets UI right.

[godelski]

  > Many such cases. https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/fresh-new-look-for-firef...

Wait, you mean when they just hid the home button by default? Idk, didn't they round some corners at that time too? Matching the style everyone else was doing. The video they reference is here[0]. Even on that page you link it looks more like over selling the redesign... I remember that change and how it really didn't feel different. It looks a lot like my browser currently is except I enabled vertical tabs and groups, which, to be clear, both are optional. Oh, I noticed the download icon currently has little edges like ⎵ instead of _ and the back and forward arrows don't have circles around them. I'm really having a hard time finding the differences tbh.

Also, you can, and always have been able to right click the toolbar and click "customize toolbar" if you really want the home button back. They do keep your settings and it will sync across browser accounts.

I mean you can have preferences and that's all cool, but these don't really seem to be reasons to have such passionate dislike. They're fine for indifference and a different preference, but hate?

But I do envy you. I wish I had such a life that the difference between viewing an image in the same tab and a new tab was the biggest problem I had to worry about.

[0] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/new-firefox-coming-june-...

[godelski]

  > And often it's tiny stupid things like removing "show image" from the context menu

Are you talking about how they changed "View Image" to "Open Image in New Tab"?

I mean... come on... that is... petty.

There's two easy workarounds if you are really adamant about not having that new tab. 1) copy the link and just paste it in. Ctrl (or cmd)+L to the browser bar and then just paste. Pretty quick thing. I do something similar when pages prevent the opening image and I just pull it from the inspector instead. 2) You can just drag the image onto the tab.

I mean.. I get it. I'm a vim user so who wants to lift your hand and reach for the mouse. But I'm not sure that kind of thing is even a paper cut. Paper cuts draw blood. Making you view an image in a new tab instead of the current one is more like they don't have your favorite color toy. Annoying, but it's not like anything meaningful changed.

[encom]

Wait until they remove the feature YOU rely on hundreds of times a day. I dunno why you are so eager to invalidate my opinion. It's not impossible to work around, I'm not retarded, but it's tedious as fuck.

[motorest]

> Wait until they remove the feature YOU rely on hundreds of times a day.

So they renamed a menu entry to "Open image in new tab" from "View image".

Is this what you qualify as a problem that... Forces you to switch to an entirely different application?

And that is your best example.

[godelski]

In their defense, it wasn't a rename. "View image" viewed the image in the same tab. But yeah, I agree that it is a pretty petty thing to be passionately upset about.

[figmert]

> they actually do not or cannot present any tangible argument against Firefox. They just shit talk about Firefox, and hand-wave their criticism with inane comments like "they lost the boat".

Have you seen that Mozilla has basically become an ad agency?

[motorest]

> Have you seen that Mozilla has basically become an ad agency?

Even taking these comments at face value, this blend of arguments is pretty stupid given that you're making this sort of claims about Firefox when discussing not using Chrome.

[figmert]

To be clear, I do use Firefox and haven't even installed Chrome/Chromium for a long time. But given that Mozilla is inching closer and closer towards ad agency, it's only a matter of time that Firefox will open up the same issues that Chrome has.

The argument of Firefox vs Chrome is not siloed and inherently includes the argument of what their respective developers do and don't do. If we didn't need to include them in the face of such an argument, there would be little reason to switch away Chrome.

[darkwater]

So, like Google, the makers of Chrome?

[sswezey]

Google _is_ an ad agency

[dwedge]

What if my problem is that it's funded by Google to the tune of a billion a year and spent a large part of the last two years trying to reposition itself as an ad company?

[godelski]

So when options are

  1) Google, an ad company
  2) Firefox, a company who Google gives money to

Your choice is #1, because #2 is funded by #1?

I'm honestly having a difficult time following this logic

[dwedge]

2. Should be "Firefox, an ad company sponsored by Google to keep anti-monopoly at bay"

My choice at that point comes down to which is the better browser rather than some moral support for one company over the other. It also rubs me the wrong way that Mozilla is pretending to be the good guy underdog.

In an ideal world, and hopefully soon, there would be a real third choice but for now they're the same picture.

[godelski]

Firefox is an ad company?

Okay, let's go with that premise, I'll rephrase.

So when options are

  1) Google, a $2.3T ad company
  2) Firefox, an ad company that Google pays $300m/yr for Google to be the default search engine
  3) Safari, a $3T ad company that Google pays $20bn/yr for Google to be the default search engine
  4) Opera, an ad company that Google pays ??/yr for Google to be the default search engine AND is Chromium based
  5) <other> browser, an ad company that Google pays ??/yr for Google to be the default search engine (and is likely Chromium based)

Your choice is #1, because #2 is funded by #1?

I am still failing to see the logic here. If anything, I'm more confused. What do you use? Ladybird? What about before that? Seriously, I'm so fucking lost here.

[bornfreddy]

Sure, but let's keep things in perspective... "it's funded by Google" is still a lesser evil than "it is Google".

[dwedge]

That's true, but pretending to be the good guy underdog while really being Google's voice rubs me the wrong way