• Whirlybird@aussie.zone
    11·
    11 months ago

    Edge wasn’t always chromium. It was their own engine and it was great, but too many people complained essentially that it wasn’t chromium so they switched to chromium.

      • Altima NEO@lemmy.zipEnglish
        1·
        11 months ago

        Yeah, it might have been “fine” at the normal web browsing part, but Microsoft kept trying to push their proprietary extension store. Also, didn’t they not support extensions for the longest time? I think that was the biggest reason they switched to chromium, so they could use all those existing chrome extensions?

  • WatchMySixWillYa@lemmy.mlEnglish
    82·
    11 months ago

    From this band, I get more and more in love with Vivaldi, especially their Workspaces feature.

    • Kichae@kbin.social
      63·
      11 months ago

      Yeah, I use Vivaldi at work. I love it.

      It’s not on my personal devices, but if work is going to default to Chrome anyway, I may as well be using the best version of it.

  • Gamey@feddit.rocks
    27·
    11 months ago

    I just wish Mozilla didn’t just tread Gecko as part of Firefox, the few who tried developing on it came to the conclusion that it’s not sustainable if the engines developer doesn’t give a fuck about you! :/

      • Gamey@feddit.rocks
        3·
        11 months ago

        Well, they always did it like that and basically cut all their bigger projects in the massive layoff so I wish they did too but I doubt it :/

    • Mikina@programming.dev
      1·
      11 months ago

      Add-ons are a pretty huge security risk, though. Someone was just posting an article about how tempting it is to sell out with your extension, and how many offers you actually get.

      And I’ve already been burned once, and it’s not pretty. Also nothing you can do against this.

      The best solution is actually not Firefox, but Mullvad. No need for extensions, based on Tor Browser and can be bundled with a VPN that’s full of other people using the same browser - so you have exactly the same fingerprint, and they can’t tell you apart. Not by extensions, not by IP.

      • exu@feditown.comEnglish
        2·
        11 months ago

        Based on his history it seems unlikely that gorhill, the creator of uBlock Origin would sell out.
        And if something did change, there would be enough news about it to notify you. (Like the extension Avast bought a while ago)

      • stillwater@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        11 months ago

        It’s pretty shitty to lump uBlock Origin in with those other, shittier ad blockers blindly. After all, anyone who knew the first thing about ad blockers even back then knew that there were plenty of bad ones around but that uBO wasn’t one of them.

      • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
        2·
        11 months ago

        IMO any of the forks are inherently weaker than the main and there’s nothing stopping you from making Firefox work exactly like whichever flavor of fork you prefer, but with security updates the day they come out.

      • exu@feditown.comEnglish
        1·
        11 months ago

        uBlock Origin can act as adblocker plus NoScript combined if you enable advanced mode.

      • persolb@lemmy.mlEnglish
        131·
        11 months ago

        I love it in theory… but it just broke so many websites I needed to use. And not always in obvious ways.

          • persolb@lemmy.mlEnglish
            1·
            11 months ago

            UBlock is much more reliable than no script in my experience. It’s also usually obvious when it breaks; no script sometimes isn’t obvious until you hit submit and notice none of what you typed actually got sent.

        • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml
          2·
          11 months ago

          Then just put those sites on your trust list?

          You can go through all the sites the initial HTTP request calls out to and decide which ones get a pass. This is how I ensure sites like gstatic, googletagmanager, etc. don’t collect data even though the rest of the site works.

          If that’s too much, just open the flood gates for that site and trust everything there. At least it isn’t just sending all your data out by DEFAULT.

        • gammasfor@sh.itjust.works
          2·
          11 months ago

          Yeah these days literally every website uses JavaScript in some format as modern reactive design is easier to do if you can execute client side code. Blocking JavaScript is a sledgehammer solution to the problem.

      • vii@lemmy.ml
        5·
        11 months ago

        You can use Ublock Origin in advanced mode, which allows you to block, blacklist/whitelist scripts.

    • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
      2·
      11 months ago

      We wanted HTML as complex as Adobe Flash. When we got it, the standard became so complex no way smaller players that didn’t dedicate massive resources to keeping up could possibly keep up.

      There was just no way to keep presto up to date with the ever evolving web without a massive new source of income for Opera.

  • lolcatnip@reddthat.comEnglish
    49·
    11 months ago

    This is a fucking childish take. If you don’t like what Google is doing with Chromium that’s one thing, but acting as if the code itself is evil is just straight-up magical thinking.

      • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        11 months ago

        So will Firefox, you think they’re not making ad revenue and operating in a capitalist system to do so?

        Firefox ain’t fucking Tron, it doesn’t fight for the users.

    • MaliciousKebab@sh.itjust.works
      English
      4·
      11 months ago

      The thing is, Google has so much influence on chromium that even if you don’t use Chrome, using chromium based browsers means you still help google maintain its monopoly on web. Only real alternatives are Firefox, Librewolf etc.

    • Spudwart@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      1·
      11 months ago

      Chromium is controlled by Google.

      Browsers down steam on Chromium will either pull from chromium or fork from it.

      They hold >75% of global browser market share.

      They make a change, like enforcing Web Environment Integrity API, you either comply or your competing chromium browser will.

  • AncientBlueberry@lemmy.world
    274·
    11 months ago

    Google accounts for some 80%+ of Mozilla’s revenue. Firefox struck a different kind of deal with the devil than chromium browsers, but Google is the one pulling the strings.

    • CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml
      5·
      11 months ago

      Bit of a weird thought, but I wonder also if they see Mozilla as a sort of controlled opposition too? As in, keep Firefox around so they don’t get in trouble over antitrust or something like that?

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        4·
        11 months ago

        Mozilla.org is the corpse of Netscape that Google keeps animated so that it looks like they have competition when they really don’t.

        The existence of Firefox is something they can point to to say they’re not a monopoly. The fact that 80% of the revenue Firefox receives is from Google means that Google effectively controls them. Mozilla has to weigh every decision against the risk that it will cause Google to withdraw their funding. That severely restricts the choices they’re willing to consider.

        Firefox is only 5% of browsers, so it really doesn’t matter to Google if that 5% of users considers using a different search engine. Because of the Firefox user base, many of them will have already switched search engines, and because Google is such a dominant player, many others would switch back to Google if the browser used a different default. So, maybe 10% of that 5% would permanently switch search engines if Google stopped paying. Is that really worth billions per year? Probably not. But, pretending like you have competitors in the browser space and using that to push back on antitrust, that’s definitely worth billions per year.

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          2·
          11 months ago

          Google makes something like $100 Billion a year in search ad revenue. 5% of that is $5 Billion.

          It’s odd that people think Google is incredibly worried about having too large of a market share in the browser market (which they don’t make any money from) yet their 92% market share in searches is not concerning at all in terms of the potential for regulation.

          The truth is nobody does anti-trust anymore (though they definitely should) and the big corporations aren’t worried at all about it. Google makes Chrome, Android, and pays Mozilla because they want to maintain dominance in the search market. Which is the thing they make money form. What they pay Mozilla is a drop in the bucket compared to what they pay Apple to be the default search engine on their devices.

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            2·
            11 months ago

            Google doesn’t directly make money from their browser, but controlling their browser means they lock in the thing that drives their revenues. They can always test it out against all their ads and make sure it works, putting out a fix if it ever doesn’t. We’ve also seen recently how they’re trying to make it so people can’t run ad blockers, something they could only consider if they lock down the entire browser market.

            • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
              3·
              11 months ago

              I disagree.

              Google doesn’t “control” mozilla in that way.

              They can always test it out against all their ads and make sure it works, putting out a fix if it ever doesn’t.

              They could do this even if they weren’t funding mozilla. Ad’s aren’t exactly reliant on bleeding edge web standards anyway. You’re thinking about tracking tech, which they don’t have any input in for firefox.

              We’ve also seen recently how they’re trying to make it so people can’t run ad blockers

              Well yes, and mozilla was quite vocal in their opposition, demonstrating that Google doesn’t have much control over them.

        • can@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          9·
          11 months ago

          I see that as an okay compromise. Anyone who cares will also know how to change it easily.

          • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
            1·
            11 months ago

            And I actually wouldn’t have a problem with using google for searches if it weren’t for the fact they constantly do the captcha thing when I’m connecting via VPN. Captchas for a simple google search.

            I’m not against google making money off of a good product, but they’ve enshittified it too much to be considered good now.

            • Andrew@mander.xyz
              1·
              11 months ago

              Bruh, I just checked google.com again after a long time… Damn, I forgot that it was so annoying. Have been using ddg for years — no problem.

          • archchan@lemmy.ml
            0·
            11 months ago

            A lot of people don’t bother with changing defaults and corpos like Google, Microsoft, and the likes are well aware of this which is why Google pays Mozilla hundreds of millions of dollars per year to be the default search engine.

            I understand the compromise at the surface level but the implications just result in Google gaining more power and data, making it harder for “alternatives” to replace it over time which puts us all in an a bad situation when they decide to pull shit like WEI.

            • can@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1·
              11 months ago

              That’s a good point, though I still think the average person is already entrenched in Google. Being the default on an alternative browser isn’t really going to make the difference to the average, uncaring individual.

              In a perfect world it wouldn’t be necessary but on the bright side Google search is already doing enough itself to make the average person want to try something else.