• Mikina@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years 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.

  • AncientBlueberry@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 years 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.

    • Random Dent@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      2 years 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years 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.

  • boeman@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    2 years ago

    This feels weird to say… I really think Microsoft should’ve stuck with trident / edgehtml.

  • lewegee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 years ago

    Be sure to install AdNauseam on your Firefox to really go full “fuck you” to google.

  • Resol van Lemmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 years ago

    Safari still uses the WebKit engine… right?

    Google Chrome used to use WebKit before switching to their own weird engine that a whole bunch of other browsers now use.

    • nonearther@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 years ago

      When Google forked from WebKit to create Blink, they had genuine reasons for it.

      Apple was stalling any progress of web by stalling new features in WebKit. They wanted to push their native apps and get big cut from developers’ money.

      Google had to fork and progress web dev further.

      And unfortunately for us, Google folks are greedy assholes who stop at nothing to own everything web even if they have to bend everything.

      WEI is a perfect example.

  • hi_its_me@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Honest question… I get that Chrome has a bunch questionable privacy practices that sends data back to Google, but do the chromium based browsers do that as well? My understanding is that Chromium is just the rendering engine. How is it bad?

    Also, if Google implements their bullshit DRM features, I wonder if the derivative browsers will be able to disable it. I believe I saw that Brave said they won’t use it.

    • nyoooom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      Safari might have better performance than others but I feel like the UI is pretty clunky, and as a développer, god I HATE safari and all their differences with every other major browser.

      • itscozydownhere@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        A developer friend told me the same… it’s a shame because it’s so handy with continuity between devices and all. Probably I’m just used to it