Indeed this is the main point, and the reason I've stuck with Firefox ever since it launched, despite being rather slow a few years back. This is the only browser engine that is not shaped by major corporate interests. And frankly it has no major downsides as compared to Chrome. The latter only enjoys the market share it does (in my opinion) because of being aggressively pushed on Google.com and being bundled everywhere.

I gave Firefox a try a month or two ago when people started saying it was good again. I think I had a problem with uBlock origin not working well enough - too much crap was getting through. What are people using for adblock?

I think I know what you're referring to, if you were using one of the unstable (beta, nightly, developer edition) channels with Firefox 57. There was a brief period I noticed during which the uBlock Origin WebExtension edition wasn't fully up to par with the old XUL-based version, letting some ads slip through. That's been fixed since then.

Though not a adblocker, Privacy Badger[0] works well as adblocker for me

[0] https://www.eff.org/privacybadger

uBlock origin with uMatrix

I use uBlock Origin plus uMatrix but I have to say that it's probably only for people who are really serious about security. It breaks nearly every site by default.

This really depends on the lists that you use in each. Research exactly what you want to block. I personally don't like a few of the lists for that specific reason, they block everything all together, not just tracking pixel domains and things of that nature. There is also an official uBlock Origin Extra extension that I find very handy for blocking websocket garbage. This is becoming more important as websocket connections become more prevalent. https://github.com/gorhill/uBO-Extra/wiki/Sites-on-which-uBO...

uMatrix doesn't have any predefined lists though, you have to configure each site's matrix on first-visit, and it defaults to deny.

Does uMatrix really give a lot more security on top of uBlock Origin, in exchange for all the inconveniences?

I tried several times, but ended up sticking to a sandbox (firejail) + uBlock Origin + HTTPS Everywhere.

I wonder this, too. I use uBlock Origin in medium mode (advanced settings available, no third-party scripts or frames until enabled), and it seems to do what's needed. It breaks a lot of things, but also makes it easy to fix them.

You can just run uBlock in medium or hard mode...

On one of my laptops I downloaded a hosts file with a comprehensive list of advertising hostnames. This was to be able to browse with Edge back when it didn't have extensions and certain ads made it freeze. It was a bit of a pain because I had to go through the whole file to make sure there was nothing dodgy going on. But it did the trick.

I thought of making a script that updates that file automatically, but I can't say I've seen any ads on that laptop even without updating the file for months, so hasn't been my first priority.

AdBlock Plus was working well, until now, when they were forced to change the UI in 3.0 to be compatible with Firefox's new version. Now it is practically unusable.

Unfortunately Firefox breaks usability features at notion.so and app.intercom.io, so I still have to use Chrome (on Linux).

BTW: if using Android, if FF is not for you, try Brave instead of Chrome.

It feels exactly like Chrome (it's Chromium-based), but has a built-in adblocker, tracker blocking, HTTPS everywhere, no nagging to sign in, and does not throw "suggested news" (with no opt-out) upon you. Brave's founder is ex-Mozilla's CEO (Brendan Eich).

However latest FF on Android is actually not bad, at least if you have a modern phone (the UI feels slowish though on pre-2016 phones).

Use FF nightly on Android. It's got the quantum update and it's great. I haven't had it break on me yet, but I keep a working APK just in case.

Has it actually got Quantum DOM as well? I was under the impression that it was merely Electrolysis and Quantum Compositor (i.e. the speedups from Firefox 54), and that the massive on from 57 was still set to arrive?

The prioritization parts of Quantum DOM have landed. There is some work around preemption that still needs to happen. We should have a post talking about this coming out in the next few weeks.

I tried Android Nightly but there are still 2 small yet noticeable things Mozilla should improve (which are not at all linked to the page rendering in itself) - when it's done, it could really rival Chromium-based browsers:

- when you swipe fast, the page only scrolls by like 30%, instead of scrolling by 200% like in Chromium browsers. Basically it's impossible to quickly scroll a long page on Firefox (maybe it's configurable somehow in about:config?)

- when you long-press a link, it takes like 2-3 seconds for the menu to open. As I "open in new tab" by default, this quickly adds up.

Do you have to install the nightly build manually or can you opt-in via the default version?

Nightly and beta releases are available as separate apps.

Google Play store link for Firefox Beta: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.fi...

Google Play store link for Firefox Nightly: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.fe...

Wow, I didn't know Nightly got into play store, I installed it as an APK from mozilla site (upgrading APKs is painful in comparison to play upgrades).

Thanks!

From what I've read, Brave doesn't block ads -- it replaces them with other ads. I don't think that it's a good idea.

Firefox for Android also allows browser extensions, which gives some control of the software back to the user.

Except that it does actually block ads and doesn't replace them. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet when you can just try the product :)

Except it does. It has the functionality to do BOTH.

The tagline of giving the option to either disable ads or replace ads is to provide a way to enjoy an ad-free experience or to receive only optimized advertisements.

A big reason some users dislike ads isn't because of their entire existance but rather their tendency as of late to be malware-ridden or cause drops in webpage performance. These are the things that cause some users to enable ad-blockers, and Brave is the only way I've heard of that has pushed the envelope of a BETTER ad experience.

From their blog, the first is a great introduction to what Brave is about[1], as well as their response to an attack on their ad-replacement ideology[2].

[1]:https://www.brave.com/how-brave-works-for-you/

[2]:https://www.brave.com/braves-response-to-the-naa-a-better-de...

Also a quote directly from Brave:

    [The user interface] shows the major choices that Brave enables:

    You’re game to try our default mode of operation, for a better ad-supported Web. Just leave the Replace Ads item checked. This is the default mode of operation. We insert ads after blocking without hurting page load speed, and those ads will support the sites you browse. We choose ads based on browser-private user data with no remote tracking — not even by our servers.

    You want to block all ads and trackers, but you’re not sure about our plan to insert better ads with high performance and privacy. You can do this with Brave by checking Block Ads. We want you on board even if you’re just blocking everything.

    You’d like to try Brave without ad blocking or replacing, to get whatever ads and trackers you would experience in other browsers. Check Allow Ads and Tracking. We still protect you with HTTPS Everywhere and other defense by default.

>A big reason some users dislike ads isn't because of their entire existance but rather their tendency as of late to be malware-ridden or cause drops in webpage performance. These are the things that cause some users to enable ad-blockers, and Brave is the only way I've heard of that has pushed the envelope of a BETTER ad experience.

AdBlock Plus also does something equivalent through their default option to show "Unobtrusive ads."

The problem with AdBlock Plus is that, as far as I can tell, the way to get on their "unobtrusive ads" list isn't to actually be "unobtrusive" to any meaningful standard, it's to pay them to qualify you as unobtrusive.

That's not my experience with ABP. So far I haven't found any actually obtrusive ads and as far as I am concerned, they are holding up a good standard.

That doesn't have anything to do with experience, that's just a fact. Advertisers pay ABP to get on the list.

Yeah but that doesn't change the fact about the requirements to even be able to pay to get on the list.

It's a trust issue in summary. You either trust them to do a good job at screening or not.

IIRC, you pay them (not a lot) to check out your ads and verify that they are, in fact, unobtrusive. I realize it's distasteful that money changes hands at all, but I can imagine it takes a non-trivial amount of person-hours to vet these things on a large scale, and it should be easy enough to tell if they're crooked or not just by using ABP and seeing if the permitted ads are intrusive.

When I used it (until after their ad whitelisting came in), I found that they did a poor job of blocking obtrusive ads, then. Either that, or their standards for "unobtrusive" were low.

I switched to a better adblocker, so now I just whitelist sites whose ads I'm willing to see.

> Don't believe everything you read on the Internet when you can just try the product

I read about it on their own website:

https://www.brave.com/about-ad-replacement/

"Brave’s goal is to speed up the web, stop bad ads and pay publishers. One of the ways we plan to accomplish this is with ad replacements."

"Step Two: Brave Replaces Ads"

I'm using Brave on Android and it does block ads, here is the ad block engine they use: https://github.com/brave/ad-block. The replacing of ads thing isn't implemented yet, and I expect that it can be turned off when that feature has landed, like the Brave payments thing that is currently opt-in on the desktop version: https://www.brave.com/publishers/.

I was not aware of it - thx for info. A bit strange indeed.

Link for the other if interested: https://www.brave.com/about-ad-replacement/

Edit: from the link content, I understand they actually backtracked from this proposal after a backlash from publishers.

I use ff on my galaxy s5 and the ui isn't noticibly slow, but I'm on lineageos (cyanogen) and keep apps from running when not needed so ymmv

I switched to Brave a few days ago and have never been happier. The problem with firefox on Android is that it is extremely slow, though apparently not for everyone. Slow in the sense of tapping a link, then having to wait 5 to 10 seconds before the GUI updates and the link starts loading. It's incredible and I never found a solution to this problem. It's a pity really.

i would be using FF on Android if the scrolling was not so crappy. It's pretty terrible :(

... <scrolls down and up> ...

What do you mean?

There are two distinct problems I've noticed with FF scrolling vs. Chrome on Android.

First is that certain elements block scrolling. I use FF primarily for Facebook (since FF allows me to use my – shameless plug – idle-time faker extension [1]). If my scrolling thumb lands on the "Like" button of a post, the screen just stays put. So about 1/3 of my "scroll" gestures are in vain.

Second is that "flinging" motions don't register very well with Firefox. With Chrome, "flinging" sends the web page flying at a predictable speed; with Firefox, it lags for a fraction of a second before scrolling at a random speed which is usually much slower than that in Chrome. It's as if Firefox doesn't register the final thumb flick of a "fling", but Chrome does. Since "flinging" is my primary method of browsing longer web pages, ultimately my thumb has to physically do more work, and gets exhausted more quickly, when using Firefox than Chrome.

A third nitpick is that, while (non-flinging) page scrolling keeps up with my thumb, it does so in a jerky manner, like it can't quite keep up with rendering, or it doesn't see all the touch events. Reminds me of an old PDA. In contrast, scrolling in Chrome is very smooth. This looks ugly but I could live with it.

It is the first to two issues that prevent me from using Firefox on Android for anything but Facebook.

[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/addon/social-networ...

There are some values you can tweak in about:config, but I've never gotten it to be as smooth as Chrome. I know the FF team are well aware of the issue, but I figure all resources have been tied up by the upcoming FF57. As far as I know, WebRender will help.

Thank you for an in-depth explanation! I guess I use browser quite differently (qnd on simpler pages) so I never noticed any of these things.

Well dealing with certain sites covered in Javascript elements (YouTube comments on the mobile site comes to mind) the browser's 'memory' of clickable elements don't always update with each swipe. So tapping one element on a site ends up triggering something else on the page.

Have you tried the Nightly or Beta builds?

using FF on a BQ Aquaris X. I don't notice any issue of speed or scrolling.

I have moved entirely to Firefox Focus. My only problem is that the GOOGLE BAR on my home screen still throws trending suggestions and opens up chrome. Does anyone know if I can change this?

Install a non-exotic alternative launcher. I use Nova, it's very similar to the Google launcher and well polished. Not sure if all vendor images allow it. I have a Moto G5 with the vendor image.

I find it quite interesting that Android even has all the interfaces and permissions to allow alternative launchers. What a great feature in this generally fairly locked-down space of non-PC OSes.

I don't know about Focus, but you can configure Firefox for Android to act as a replacement for the Chrome Custom Tabs API, which apps use to launch those mini-Chrome windows. Caveat: I use the Nightly builds, and I'm unsure how new this feature is.

Can you install add-ons in Focus? When I tried you couldn't and that made it less privacy friendly than vanilla Firefox with Ublock.

Anecdotally, I have found that Brave chokes on some obscure websites (i.e. it won't play video or audio).

FF57 stable is arriving tomorrow. But you can get it from the FTP server today:

https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/57.0/

> exiled Chrome to an "only when needed" role

It's been my second browser for Twitch and Netflix only for a while now. I'm bit even sure how useful that is anymore if I'm honest as I've not tried them in firefox for a while - but they used to be unusable and I've become accustomed to having another browser for them

You don't need Chrome for Netflix anymore; it seems to work fine in current Firefox.

I'll try again soon-ish but I was seeing the netflix home page freeze for 5-10 seconds on open and often going unresponsive which is just intolerable tbh

Was that with FF 57? 57 is a whole new browser, any impression you have that was created with a pre-57 version needs to be re-tested.

Yeah but for our support we need to start getting in depth with Firefox devtools again.

They have features not in chrome and Visa versa. But to blindly switch means taking a productivity penalty, at least temporarily.