[DarkUranium]

I mean ... frankly, and I say this as a guy who's used solely Firefox since before it was Firefox all the way until 2025 when I finally got sick & tired of their shit... (now on WaterFox because I refuse to submit to the Google browser monopoly)

... Mozilla absolutely did this to themselves. Come think of it, they really remind me of what Microsift's been doing with Windows.

[seszett]

I still don't understand what problem you guys have with Firefox. I really don't, and comments like yours are always very vague and seem to assume that it's obvious.

For me Firefox is (slightly) better than is used to be, not by a wide margin but it's not gotten worse either.

I've been running it since it was Phoenix so I think my experience is at least somewhat valid, which is why I'm so confused by these comments.

[DarkUranium]

I apologize; my comment is vague because I wrote it on my phone, and didn't feel like writing super-long text there. I hate typing on a phone.

Anyway, for a browser that keeps touting how it's privacy-centered, they sure as hell love doing horrible things.

Cliqz is a great example; here's a direct quote from Mozilla (emphasis mine):

> "Users who receive a version of Firefox with Cliqz will have their browsing activity sent to Cliqz servers, including the URLs of pages they visit."

This was not opt-in. It was automatically enabled for a percentage of users in (I believe) Germany. Not only is it a blatant breach of the privacy promise, it's such a massive breach it's almost on the cartoon villainy level.

But for me personally, the final straw was the yet-another-pointless-UI-change at or around v103 (or thereabouts, I don't recall the exact version). When they removed icons from a bunch of menus and went with the rounded style. That version's UI redesign worsened accessibility in so many ways, and complaints by visually-impaired users were simply ignored. All for the sake of a UI redesign yet again.

I consider myself an advanced user, and even I get annoyed by the changes. Now imagine someone not tech savvy, e.g. my mother, trying to use Firefox, when the UI suddenly changes between versions. I can adapt to changes far more easily than them (not that I want to, but Mozilla keeps wanting to force it), but for some, it's going to be a struggle. For that reason alone, I can no longer recommend Firefox to non-tech-savvy people (and I used to!).

Meanwhile, Chrome, although I dislike its UI, has kept it relatively stable throughout. People get used to it, and it stays that way. They don't have to learn new things or change their habits. Now, there are a myriad of issues with Chrome, but constant UI rug-pulls aren't one of them.

That's why I'm comparing Mozilla to Microsoft. They ignore users, and shove changes nobody asked for down their throats --- even if it makes things worse for everyone. The UI change, for example, is kind of like the new context menu in Windows Explorer. On top of that, they tout being privacy-focused everywhere in the marketing, but then their actions show the exact opposite.

[account42]

The main problem is consent. Mozilla doesn't understand it. Lots of other problems flow from that.

[sgc]

Are you referring to technical implementation or the poor anti-privacy decisions they keep making when you say 'slightly better'? I have not given up, but I am profoundly disappointed and for somebody who says they have used FF for so long, it feels like I am being gaslit when you say they are peachy.

People have problems with what they choose to program, not the quality of their code. I too have used FF since the beginning, but switched to Waterfox last year (it took me about two years to make that decision - I didn't make it lightly). I chose WF in large part because its profile remains compatible with FF so I can switch back if they calm the F down and start acting normal again for long enough to rebuild some trust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mozilla_Corporati... - start at the end for most recent.

Also go to the website of any one of the FF forks and read their reasons for existing. For example:

https://www.waterfox.com/#why-waterfox

[seszett]

> Are you referring to technical implementation or the poor anti-privacy decisions they keep making when you say 'slightly better'?

Which ones are you talking about? I'm talking about Firefox, not the Mozilla Corp to be clear.

[sgc]

They are obvious in the links, no time for silly games.

[phs318u]

You’re not alone. Been a user for years and I still don’t get the hate.

Having said that, I keep a copy of Ungoogled Chromium for those websites that refuse to test against FF.

[DarkUranium]

FWIW: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48020960

Plus there's the Wikipedia link another user posted.

[TonyStr]

Could you list some of the major grievances you have with Firefox? I haven't been following the news very closely

[DarkUranium]

To avoid repeating myself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48020960