Firefox

17902 readers

21 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

k_o_t@lemmy.ml

280

Firefox has a lot of issues, but maybe we don't have any other option. (www.bleepingcomputer.com)

submitted 3 months ago by astro_ray@lemdro.id to c/firefox@lemmy.ml

158 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/20260243

Google Chrome warns uBlock Origin may soon be disabled

Google Chrome is now encouraging uBlock Origin users who have updated to the latest version to switch to other ad blockers before Manifest v2 extensions are disabled.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] cyberwolfie@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

But is it viable? I know very little of browser development, but my impression is that it is a lot of work to develop and keep the browsers secure. If Librewolf separated completely from upstream Firefox, would they be able to keep the browser secure without significantly expanding their team?

I ask in earnest, as I said I know very little about this.

[–] unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

For Firefox forks, it's viable since the forks aren't doing all that much in the grand scheme of things. That isn't to say what they're doing is in any way bad, it's just that there's no need to reinvent the wheel.

Firefox is a secure browser and already has 99% of the work done. Most changes which forks make can be done just by changing the config. Some unfortunately have to be made seperately, and that does require extensive testing. Some can even be lifted from other open-source projects.

Separating from source just isn't viable. Something nuclear would need to happen for any fork to decide to seperate from Firefox. If we just look at the Chromium side of things, Microsoft found it easier to switch to Chromium than to keep making IE/Edge from scratch, and Microsoft surely has a lot of resources to burn.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Firefox is a secure browser and already has 99% of the work done. Most changes which forks make can be done just by changing the config. Some unfortunately have to be made seperately, and that does require extensive testing. Some can even be lifted from other open-source projects

This is also true for Google's Chrome

[–] unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

As far as I know Google doesn't let some pretty basic stuff from Crome into Chromium, for example translation (might even go as far as the inbuilt password manager). Potential forks either lose those features or have to implement them seperately.

Now that Manifest v3 is rolling out, apparently Google is able to somehow block the change from being easily reverted which is additional developmental load (or just show ads). Manifest v3 won't impact Brave too much since it only applies to extensions, while their adblocking is baked-in, but it's worse than uBO.

Firefox is fully open-source and doesn't artificially make enabling adblock an issue which might attract more simpler forks (as opposed to Opera, Brave and Edge having companies backing them, Firefox forks mostly have volunteer developers or open source collectives making them).