It's really time to disentangle ourselves from google. They've quietly and effectively insinuated themselves across the web. Enough is enough.

1: no personal tracking or profiling data for the search providers

2: no 'personalised' search

3: search results from several providers condensed into one list, i.e. more results for the same query

You can also use one of the public Searx instances [2] if you trust them enough not to do their own profiling. By default Searx does not use cookies but there are other ways of tracking individual browsers so that is not a guarantee for tracking-free browsing.

[1] https://github.com/asciimoo/searx/

[2] https://github.com/asciimoo/searx/wiki/Searx-instances

Not just in the filter bubble sense of keeping out any info that the targeted user might find unpleasant, but also in the sense that "we don't surface anything outside of very recent, very mainstream, large corporate sites" even when that's exactly what I don't want to sift through on a given search.

It's a real pain if you're trying to do research in a niche area or in an academic field that isn't hip and popular, if you're not in the 90% bracket of the distribution results for what people click on you just don't exist on Google anymore.

This phenomena is most obvious when you're searching for something that you know still exists on the web, you can remember it being a top result years ago, but has now been effectively eliminated from the results because it's not sitting on the domain of a large corporation. Bing will still surface these sites, at least for now.

> Not just in the filter bubble sense of keeping out any info that the targeted user might find unpleasant, but also in the sense that "we don't surface anything outside of very recent, very mainstream, large corporate sites" even when that's exactly what I don't want to sift through on a given search.

I think this is why many people perceive Google Search to be "better." Those people are mainly looking for mainstream topics on a small number of mainstream sites, and Google has heavily biased their algorithm in that direction.

> It's a real pain if you're trying to do research in a niche area or in an academic field that isn't hip and popular, if you're not in the 90% bracket of the distribution results for what people click on you just don't exist on Google anymore.

> This phenomena is most obvious when you're searching for something that you know still exists on the web, you can remember it being a top result years ago, but has now been effectively eliminated from the results because it's not sitting on the domain of a large corporation. Bing will still surface these sites, at least for now.

You can also try using DDG or Google Verbatim mode: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12045959. Though, IMHO DDG is about as good as Google Verbatim.

And when you also factor in that you're not helping Google build a profile on you, it's better than Google.

DDG uses other search engines for results (such as bing), so unless you agree Bing is improving, it’s just a placebo.

DDG is only useful because we can all fall back on g!. It’s sad but true. There is still no substitution for Google search.

This doesn't prove anything. Unless you can provide some metric to say it's not good, then it's delusion getting the better of you.

DuckDuckGo is good enough for everyday usage, for me. It has been this way for well over a year. I never use bangs.

The one place it's really currently lacking is in rejection of spam sites.

DDG is so good that I use GOOG maybe once a year as a secondary search engine. And I started with GS since it had a comically-terrible interface in 2000. I switched because they went evil and DDG was more than good enough being privacy-focused. The !bang searches are a big innovation and timesaver that sealed the deal.

But for some searches I do have to do that. E.g. searching for a HN discussion from the last week: usually no hit. Also image and video search yield surprisingly little results. This last thing is my biggest complaint on DDG.

I do still use Google on my work PC, because it knows I'm a C++ programmer and can show more relevant results. I am against the direction tracking is going, but it is useful in some cases.

Plus, people know that google search is the best, so why use something else? The problem is that they seem to "know" in the same sense that they know Kleenex are the best tissues; its all marketing.

This is not about liking the visual style of the webpage(google vs bing) or how it looks. This is about quality of results and me saving time.

This is not about me being lazy not doing "good search queries". If I can search google and get a result in 5 seconds, why would I spend 1 minute figuring out the best way to phrase something, then 3 more minutes trying different things that Bing would understand? I know there is enough information in my search, because Google understands it. Why should I add more words to it (and sometimes operators) for Bing to get it? Why should I waste my time for no reason? This does not hinder my thinking ability. It's just that Google is so good that it knows what I am thinking before I am completely done with formulating the thought. Damn, sometimes I am on a wikipedia page, I stumble upon a 4-word term unknown to me in that page, I start typing it and Google knows after 2 letters, it shows the whole complete term as a suggestion! And this happens with terms starting with very common words, so it's very likely that google just knows that most people google that exact thing after going to the Wikipedia page (since google sends me to wikipedia page from the beginning). When Bing will do these little things to aid my work, I will gladly switch.

I did try, and I do wish that Bing will get better. Right now it is simply not.

(Yes, I know there are privacy implications, and those suck. But we were talking about quality of searching...)

Finally, the quality of search results is mildly subjective the closer you get to “keyword search” and away from “text search”. Google handles this scenario the best interface wise, but quality it seems to have been going down since they introduced the knowledge base—too many unrelated bits of information being pulled in without being asked for.

I think Bing has a marketing / brand problem, as it's been the punch-line of the joke for so long.

I personally think it's actually quite good - I personally use it a lot with Safari.

I wish stuff like HP WebOS or Meego was still alive, but as far as I know, Apple and Google are the only serious players in town at the moment :-(

Apple has their own issues, but they've claimed that their business is selling you a device and software and media to run on it, and making their money from that as opposed to reselling your data. Everything they've been doing lately supports that stance, and they've already recognized it as a differentiation, hence the way they have been up-playing the privacy features of their devices lately. Since they aren't selling you as much after the fact, they are going to charge you more up-front, and since they make their money selling software, they're obsessed with controlling the marketplace.

Google gives away software and media, and sells your personal data and advertising. They're showing increasingly that they don't care about your privacy if it affects their bottom line.

You have to decide which of those business models you support, and then support it. There's no third model where a business gives everything away and cares about your privacy. That's inconsistent with a bottom line of making money, and at the end of the day that is what the business is trying to do.

For a while Google gave the impression that they cared, until they established a large enough market, and now you're seeing them make the natural transition. They've grew their cash cow by giving away stuff, now they are milking it.

Any rational company with their business model is going to do the same thing though, so if you jump ship to another ecosystem now selling you a business model that is too good to be true, don't be surprised down the line when that proves to be the case.

Disclaimer: I was a Google fanboy until a few years ago and I disliked but trusted Google until a couple of weeks ago. Now I don't know what to do but at least I've finally got around to switching my search habits.

Apple: We sell you device/app for $X

Google: We sell you device/app for $X-Y, but we make our $Y back by selling you ad data

Huawei: Hold me beer.

(I'm ignoring their hardware here because of course that's not free, and I don't think it's even intended to be a significant source of revenue anyway)

In stores around here, you can buy gift cards with a Google logo on it (play store credit). That's about as direct a way of giving them money as i can think of.

I suppose buying a gift card is technically giving Google money directly, but that isn't the same thing as payment for services rendered, it's just exchanging USD for Google Play credit, which you then spend on apps. Or in other words, you get the exact same service that you do if you skip the gift card and just pay for apps at the point of sale.

Doesn't Google sell music, e-books, and movies/TV through Google Play? They also have Google Play Music as a subscription service. I was counting the Play Store as buying applications from Google, although it isn't Google's first-party software.

I didn't realize Google Play had their own subscription music service. Good to know.

Personally, I have been using microG (https://microg.org/) instead of GSF on my phone for many years now. However, that is still just a partial solution. While it does its best to be privacy-friendly and does not have any integrated tracking / analytics like GSF, it still has to use Google's servers for push notifications, thus tracking is still possible to some degree.

"How Tutanota replaced Google’s FCM with their own notification system (f-droid.org)" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17945116

In my own personal experience that would be some really well invested £150...

Apple isn't responsible for the other manufacturers bullshit. At least Apple provides brand new OS software for 5 year old phones.

And then the next question is what are the alternative store options and which is the best?

Google searching (oops! irony!) I found aptoide.com, and found they have a lot of apps: Firefox, Firefox Focus, Lastpass, Expedia, Chime Bank, etc. I don't know how their build and distribution system ensures safe binaries - didn't check it out.

I recently dropped Google Maps in favor of OsmAnd, and I'm still having growing pains. You have to download maps offline, it's not on demand. It looks like I only get 7 downloads for free. I haven't checked pricing. I'm not sure what happens if I do a phone reset, if I get a new stack of downloads or not. Local searches are super screwy, listing things like delis, pizza, hardware store, in other towns but not my own town. It's...not like Google Maps.

I can't resist the sarcasm. In that thread, others argue vehemently that you should sacrifice your money for your values. So arguing that the more privacy-conscious phone is too expensive, is... an unexpected argument :-)

I've found Startpage and its sister site IxQuick to be a good alternative to Google. Same search results with a lot of detritus filtered out, keeps you out of Google's search bubble, and it has built in proxy features.

Instead of Bing, which tracks you for monetization on Microsoft's behalf (though I trust Microsoft with my information more than Google), try DuckDuckGo. It uses Bing as a back end but, like Startpage, proxies the query so your information and identity never hits Microsoft's servers. It's also a much cleaner page code-wise than any other search engine I've seen. It often comes up with more relevant results than Startpage; I find myself often searching both for the same subject so I don't miss what I'm looking for.

Most of the time, my searches are directly for products (ie, Amazon.com, Target.com, Walmart.com), people (ie fb.com), Wikipedia (first few hits on Google), locations (yelp.com, Google maps, ___ maps), recommendations (yelp.com, etc), hotels or travel (expedia.com, kayak.com, hotwire.com, united.com, southwest.com, etc) or Stackoverflow (first page of Google) — I’d wager any modern search engine such as Bing or DDG can easily present all the relevant Stackoverflow/Stackexchange/Stack{...} results you could ever desire.

It’s not the same as the old days of random (important) data sprinkled across the personal/hobby pages of some knowledgeable people across Geocities — is there even a need for using Google anymore?

Everything else I just invoke DuckDuckGo or Startpage.

> As is expected with Apple now, searches and results are all encrypted and anonymized and cannot be attributed to any individual user. Once you click on the ‘Show Google results’ link, of course, you’re off to Google and its standard tracking will apply. Clicking directly on a website result will take you straight there, not through Google.

In effect, this is much like using Startpage instead of google.com, at least up until you load a full results page (which I actually haven't done in quite a long time now that I think about it).

I'm pretty much done with Google now, and I think a lot of tech users will start pulling this way too.

The most frequent services I use, after thinking about it, are:

- local business/food/bars (hours, reviews) - driving directions - accessing email to confirm a signup/lookup a receipt/license etc - events, theater showtimes - flight prices - pay bills etc - check reviews/HN/ random articles.

Most of these I access directly or could be provided by any basic app/search engine.

After reviewing this list, you are left with a few extremely low margin services and a dismal grouping of actual usage, at least seemingly from Google’s point of view.

I’m not saying I’m better than a non power user (mom etc), but are they really worth more? Does clicking on Pinterest links half of the day, or forwarding political/funny emails really have value to 3rd party companies? (Google etc)

Maybe in the short term, there is a circular, ad revenue generation model, but is it really sustainable?

It seems the only option is iOS and I don't want that...

Also I'd have to buy a new phone, because mine isn't compatible :(

I can't believe that this needs to be said here, but don't use Microsoft products if your goal is to avoid dark patterns and user monetization. Microsoft is at least 10 times more corrupt than google.

You want sources? Search for:

- The Microsoft licensing corruption scandal

- Microsoft corruption Bulgaria

- Microsoft corruption Rumania

- Microsoft corruption Indonesia

- Microsoft corruption Argentina

...and the list goes on.

GP appears to be expressing a rote dislike of MS uncritically carried through from the 90s. Nowadays they're nowhere close to Google or FB in terms of EITHER anti-competitive business practices or user/consumer/human hostile product designs.

kiloBrutus

https://1.cdn.edl.io/yteBVOxUCXm1v0nlnSH3aSYPHggabvUHBwPAXBl...

One needs a big scale unit because the subject of 'Microsoft' and 'Google' does imply a very big scale...

That's exactly the rub. We don't really know.

My Windows phone is going defunkt and the only alternative I really see is either an iPhone, or then back to a dumb phone (a 4G wifi hotspot function would be great, but I haven't found a reasonable dumb phone supporting that).

I'll be damned before I carry any Android device on me.

So, Lineage is a more realistic alternative. They're unlikely to spy on you through the drivers, at least it's more unlikely than being spied on by Apple by using an iPhone.

The problem with that approach is that I don't want to fiddle with my phone. I don't fancy installing custom roms and I don't need the frustration about a device running 99% fine, except for those annoying 1% that you need right now.

I see an analogy in GNU/Linux, which I started to use in 1999 (yeah, on the desktop). It was really good fun. I liked compiling my own kernels because I could. It's great when you can compile, say, Postgresql to the exact specifics of your box, etc.

But then you get to the point where you just want that damn thing to work. You don't want to waste a couple hours or more in figuring out how to burn a cd. let alone games (a situation, which is much better now). So, at one point and as much as I like GNU/Linux, the philosophy behind free software and the endless possibilities of tinkering with your system I switched back to Windows.

It's probably even worse with a phone. I want that damn thing to just work and I don't see that with keeping an Android phone Google free.

At least Apple is not in the business of selling my privacy to the sleaziest of sleaze in order to make a quick buck.

Edited to add : Thanks for the Librem 5 suggestion. I'll look into it.

Actually, it works better than an average Android phone, or than the same phone with stock system:

- better battery life (it used ~ 2% battery during this very work day, with a few texts and one call) because it quite literally does nothing if I don't use it (granted, I use ForceDoze and that helps a lot).

- It never shows any sign of slowness, is never laggy like I can witness on many phones around me (and I use Firefox Mobile, which is supposed to be slow from what I read).

- I didn't have to disable any unwanted app.

Well, except for EAP SIM Wifi authentication, which does not work on any custom ROM that I know of and flashing a custom ROM is indeed a stressful experience, especially the first time.

Librem 5 will be pricey but seems like a good option when it is ready.

Maybe I should indeed do some research and look into it seriously. Your experience sounds really good and, provided I go that route, should save me a bundle (iPhones, especially the new lineup) are brutally expensive in Europe.

Your reply (and others in the thread) once again shows what a valuable resource HN can be.

Thanks!

I'd like something more linux-y, maybe with support for Android that I can run xDrip and AndroidAPS. But nothing else from Google. Anyways Signal, Email and Firefox are the other apps I need from the system.

No affiliation, just another customer.

I don't use email _that_ heavily, so I'm on their free plan and that's just fine for me.

(www.protonmail.com)

1) The web UI is probably not very nice and snappy if you use email a lot.

2) No IMAP for Linux (still).

3) If you happen to be like me (a bit of an idiot sometimes) and lock your phone so you don't get access to your authenticator AND you forgot the security keys, all your old emails will be PGP garbage from now on.

4) The Android app is a bit so-so... Bugs happen.

The good parts are it works, doesn't spy on you, encrypts everything client-side and is based in Switzerland outside of US and EU jurisdiction.

[0] https://digitalcontentnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DC...

> All android devices?

No, not all Android devices. Only the ones with the Google Services Framework installed (or, if you're as paranoid as I am, any other Google service that is running as root).

To give you an overview, Google's power over Android users basically rests on the following pillars:

1. Google Services Framework (GSF): AFAIK every Google app requires the GSF to be installed on your phone these days. The GSF runs as root, includes all kinds of analytics libraries. It also links your phone to your account if you decide to set it up on your phone (which, theoretically, you don't have to but, in practice, you are often forced to). If you indeed do that and connect your phone to your account, things like contacts, calendar entries and so on get synchronized automatically.

Even worse, there's also a way for the GSF to back up all your apps' data and upload them to the Google servers. I'm just mentioning this to make it clear that the GSF really has access to everything on your phone.

Solution: Use MicroG (https://microg.org) as a GSF replacement. This, in turn, requires using a custom ROM like LineageOS and, thus, your phone's bootloader to be unlockable. Not all Google apps will work with MicroG but most do in my experience (see below).

2. Google Play Store: Most apps are only available on the Play Store, so if you want to use any of these you'll have to use the Play Store in one way or another. The Play Store, however, needs the Google Services Framework. And even if you got rid of the GSF and replaced it with MicroG (see 1), you would still have to install the Play Store as a system app, giving it root access to your phone.

Solution: Apart from getting rid of the GSF (see 1), use F-Droid for open-source apps and something like Yalp Store (or the Aurora fork) to download apps from the Play Store. (There are also ways to download apps from the Play Store using F-Droid, see e.g. https://github.com/NoMore201/playmaker) You won't be able to obtain paid apps this way, though. (Or, more precisely, you won't be able to download apps that you haven't already paid for.)

2. In-app payments ("Android Pay")

As you might expect, these are also tied to the Play Store and the GSF.

Solution: I haven't tried this in a long time but you might be able replace the GSF with MicroG and just have the Play Store installed and tied to your Google account in order for in-app payments to work. No guarantees, though.

3. Google SafetyNet (part of GSF, as well)

From my POV, this is the most painful Google "feature". It's a Google library that apps like Netflix and online banking apps use to verify that the device they're running on has not been "tampered" with. (What "tampered" means exactly is unclear -- it definitely includes rooted devices but the precise definition is Google's secret.)

If you want to use apps like Netflix, there is no real way around SafetyNet. This is because, if installed on your phone, SafetyNet will download a binary blob from Google, execute it and send its output (basically all the information the blob collected about your phone) to the Google servers. The latter will then do the verification process and notify the Netflix servers (or your bank's servers) about the result. The Netflix servers can then tell the Netflix app on your phone to lock you out if need be.

Solution: While MicroG can't circumvent this, it does support SafetyNet these days by emulating the original SafetyNet implementation. So it, too, will download the binary blob and execute it.

Put differently, in order to use Netflix and most online banking apps you will still have to make sure that your phone passes the SafetyNet test. Here, you've got two options:

Option a): Hide root access and other system modifications (like Xposed) from SafetyNet by using something like Magisk (https://forum.xda-developers.com/apps/magisk/official-magisk...).

Option b): Don't use root or any of those modifications in the first place. (I.e. you could just run LineageOS without root and you should be fine.) The problem with non-rooted devices is that they also don't allow you to run a firewall or apps like Xprivacy for more fine-grained privacy control. (When it comes to firewalls not requiring root, NetGuard does come close, though. However, it should be noted that you won't be able to use VPNs anymore.)

4. Google services that are tied a Google account, e.g. Gmail, Drive, Maps, Picasa, Home, Google Now/voice assistant etc.

As already mentioned, they all require the GSF to be installed on your phone.

Solution: I would recommend staying away from them but if you really need them you should be able to replace the GSF with MicroG and they should still work. There might be exceptions, though, depending on how deeply they are integrated with your phone. (The voice assistant might be one such example.)

5. Google services that are not tied to a Google account, e.g. Maps

Solution: Same as 4) and/or use an OpenStreetMaps-based app like OsmAnd as a replacement for maps.

The hard part is de-coupling yourself from Google services, if you rely on them. That may be solved via self-hosted services. See: https://github.com/Kickball/awesome-selfhosted

This is from someone who used a nexus 6p for two years, and some older stuff before that - but who has recently switched back to iPhone for its ease of use and privacy stance.

(This is very similar to Windows vs macOS, by the way.)

And very similar to Linux vs. Windows for that matter. :)

It's not as good at finding obscure forum posts related to a query however

I assume quality of results, but the context was sort of lost in the thread you replied to.

https://about.qwant.com/legal/privacy/

https://about.qwant.com/

+1 for open source I guess.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18024277

Now called Matomo (https://matomo.org/).

In case anyone was confused or looking for it.

To what? iOS spies even more by default (no way to disable AGPS vs. opt in on Android) and doesn't allow using privacy-enabling apps by default (system-wide ad/tracker blocker, real Firefox, Signal, local maps, etc.) unless you hack your phone. Worse, it doesn't let you develop for your own phone without rebuilding weekly or paying a yearly fee for the privilege. Between the two evils of Google and Apple, Google remains the lesser evil by a long stretch.

They're also the only company who has been strong enough to stick up for their customers and publicly decline the US government assistance or backdoors into their products.

True but I'd like to point out that different standards are being applied here when talking about Android's lack of privacy vs iPhone's privacy friendly policies. Namely there is a large post above on how Google Services Framework has access to everything in your phone so it is bad (and we need to do everything to get rid of it) simply because of what it _can_ do, rather than of what it actually does (because what it does largely depends on user settings, like for example if you want to backup your whole phone, obviously that's going to package and save all your phone's contents on Google servers).

Most of the privacy features you mention seem targeted to stop a certain type of information gathering (that of web based adtech, obviously those are Apple's competitors so it's not surprising) while it's not covering the biggest issue IMO with smartphones: information gathering by the system applications that you have no control over. Do we know how much information does Apple collect with their system software and store it associated with your AppleID and you have no control over that? I never used an iPhone so I'm curious, especially things like: location (nearby cell tower information, GPS and wifi networks), contacts, phone call log, SMS log, process list/applications running or installed, DNS logs, API calls logs.

I just showed you one way that iOS spies on you that you can't turn off. All other default data collection is exactly the same between iOS and Android. N + 1 > N. Q.E.D.

> There are system-wide ad-blockers

Where? I'm talking about blocking ads and trackers in all apps, not just in web views.

> Firefox Focus is great

It doesn't use Gecko or Spidermonkey. It is not real Firefox.

> and there is a Signal app.

Which, as I already said, you can't set as your default SMS app.

> They're also the only company who has been strong enough to stick up for their customers and publicly decline the US government assistance or backdoors into their products.

Even Google has declined to assist the US government. There is no difference here. Everywhere else, iOS is significantly worse.

> Apple charges more because they don't sell you data or spy on you.

Apple charges more because they know they have enough rubes that will buy into their marketing spiel, even convincing some software engineers to buy programmable devices they aren't allowed to program. Google doesn't sell your data either, and as I've already shown, Android spies on you less.

Nope. https://blokada.org/index.html

> And you've obviously not done very much research about what data Apple collects vs Google.

I showed you exactly how Apple collects more data from iOS than Google does from Android. You're trying to Pee-wee Herman your way out of this with an "I know you are but what am I?"

> Google makes you approve all permissions when you install an app without clearly stating what it means. iOS apps have to ask for specific permission the first time they want to use GPS, camera, microphone, etc.

You're wrong — Android also asks for permission at the time the app wants to use a feature. More importantly, this has nothing to do with what data Google or Android collects, which is the whole point of this thread.

> it's not like you can't use Signal.

Moving the goalposts. You can't use Firefox. An SMS app is nearly useless if it can't be set to the default.

> And Google is currently working with the US government on many projects, which has caused many Googlers to quit the company.

Again, not by sharing user data with them, which is the whole point of this discussion.

Apple allowed them for about a year before reversing course. Lookup Adguard's blog posts for detailed history.

Their app was fantastic (I've still got an old version installed which is still working great on iOS 12.1) and allowed the use of standard tracking lists for systemwide blocking / firewalling.

My guess for why Apple reversed course is that they had no easy way of stopping spyware-masquerading-as-adblockers without blocking all.

[citation needed]

Have you tried Maps.me? It downloads OSM maps for local usage.

If you want to use a web browser, then use Firefox.

I doubt that. With the marketshare on Windows it is very likely, that people deliberateley install Chrome. So they know what a browser is, now that they have at least 2 installed.

Plus some pre-built PCs come with Chrome preloaded.

Until some weeks ago I was less unhappy with Google Chrome than with firefox, but now I am kind of almost equal unhappy with both...

At least twice. https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/16/firefox-mr-robot-extensi... https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/9ii8sj/firefox_kee...

There may be a legitimate debate worth having here, but basing the complaint on the good code hygiene practised by Mozilla's developers is silly.

These so-called "compromises" were nothing in any practical sense. Meanwhile, every web page you visit leaks the fact of your existence a hundred different ways and 99% of us don't care much.

In general, I see firefox's point that using the system extensions to deliver autouodates and allow them to iterate more quickly. However, it also feels like whenever we see these extensions that they're something shady.

Firefox activates limited telemetry for folks who turn off the heavy stuff. While your firefox browser shows that no telemetry is taking place, the browser will silently send information about your browser, os, and other information to Mozilla.

Personally, the privacy implications don't concern me as much as a browser that is deliberately lying to and deceiving it's users (though I can certainly see how it can be privacy concern).

If someone wants true and total control over their browsing experience, neither firefox or chrome are a good choice (imo).

It's unfair to describe these as "installing random extensions without asking" because you would then have to admit that it's equally true of every new feature of every software program that is ever updated.

Chrome on the other hand removed that option years ago. Deleting Chrome Update's scheduled-task is my workaround.

I don't recall if extension updates can be disabled in chrome.

The outlier is (was?) IE, it kept the same interface and configurability while others continued dumbing down (although things are changing with Edge too) and it seems the massively anti-user decisions the other browsers made never really took hold at MSFT until most recently when they began sticking telemetry up the wazoo.

If you care more about user control than web standards compatibility then perhaps IE is the best choice... for now. At least it is more compatible than the "fringe" browsers like Dillo and NetSurf, or even the text-based ones. Opera, before it became another WebKit-shell, might be another good one.

(Disclaimer: No affiliation with MSFT, just someone who has watched these browser wars for a long time and saw this gradual "illusion of choice" take hold. I use various browsers depending on which site it is.)

They were built and grew out of their initial 'don't be evil' culture.

I'll keep Chrome around, like Opera, for browser testing.

"Crashes every day"? I can't remember the last time I had a Firefox crash; maybe this is OS-dependent. (I use it on Windows and on FreeBSD; how about you?)

"The UX is bad compared to Chromium" -- obviously if you're used to one program's UX then another's may seem obtuse. What about the Firefox UX is actually bad as opposed to different? (For what it's worth, to me FF and Chrome seem very similar to use.)

(I think I agree about ctrl-F, which on some particular pages seems to misbehave on Firefox in ways I don't understand.)

I haven't seen a Chrome crash in years, yet the Firefox ones are very frequent. Not that I want to switch, I might be the only one here who is happy with Chromium on all my PCs!

I think he was referring to the fact that Mozilla is still unsure about unifying the address and search bars. They only show an unified bar on fresh profiles, IIRC. What he thinks is wrong with keeping distinct bars, besides being different from Chrome, I don't know.

> Closing as WONTFIX since FxOS is no more

The Web USB API didn't even exist when that bug was first created.

Or do you mean you can't tell it to default to a zoom level that isn't 100%? (That seems to be true.) I confess that's never a thing it's occurred to me to want; it feels like if I wanted every website's text to look larger or smaller, I'd probably want everything to look larger or smaller and would adjust my OS's scaling level. But I know some OSes handle that better than others, and maybe there are good reasons for wanting different scalings for websites than for everything else. Still, it's not clear to me that this is so obviously important a thing that "doesn't even have" is fair.

Considering the cost to implement would probably be pretty low, I think it is a fair complaint against the browser. Still, privacy concerns may supersede convenience in this particular case, and I think I might try again to switch.