Well, that's a depressing sentence to read. The vultures may be circling, but Firefox isn't dead yet.
I thought it's unmaintained since the recent Mozilla layoffs?
I don’t like this any more than you, but it’s the truth.
- doesn't update via a sketchy background process (Google Updater, or whatever they've renamed it to this month to avoid scrutiny)
- allows me to customize the UI to fit my needs (tree style tabs are an absolute must for me)
- allows me to use a full ad blocker like uBlock Origin instead of arbitrarily limiting the ad blocker API to advance the interests of advertisers
Of course, Firefox's management is an enormous problem, from the way they've prioritized features to the recent layoffs to the enormously stupid decisions (letting a certificate expire that disabled almost all add-ons, the Mr. Robot tie-in "experiment", pushing pocket, default disabling userChrome.css, forcing auto-updates) they've made in the past 5 years. But the core of Firefox is good.
I would love a startup that builds an entire business off of a fork of Firefox that's completely based on privacy, perhaps with some non-invasive monetization like:
- a $5-20 one-time fee to use (with weak enforcement, a la Sublime Text's "annoy you every 5 saves" model)
- a paid vs. free split where the free version of the browser adblocks ads but replaces them with in-network, verified safe ads
- Linux kernel donation-style only model, with no parent corporation
Because of all of the Firefox devs floating around who just got laid off, you could even snatch up some guaranteed capable talent already familiar with the code base. And the best part? They're already vetted to not be part of the management-industrial complex that's taken over Firefox these days.
It's enough of a skew that when rendering errors crop up, product managers have to decide how many eng-hours it's worth to chase down the small implementation difference between Chromium and Gecko to snag 1 in 10 potential lost visitors, instead of throwing a UA-sniffing "best viewed in Chrome" banner on the page and calling it a day.
Being a rarely-used browser is a negative feedback loop for compatibility, regardless of what standards say (because standards are often too loose to guarantee full interoperability in all corner cases; they rarely give performance constraints and often don't consider all possible combinations of feature use).
your ideal privacy focused firefox comes with a conflict of interest built in
Don't know if this is 100% accurate, but Tor?
You probably meant "Tor Browser". Changes from there were backported, and last time I checked plan was to have it entirely backported within Mozilla Firefox.
We're literally discussing this on a post where Chrome is switching from a proprietary protocol (Google QUIC) to a standardized protocol (IETF QUIC).
(Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)
What websites are Chrome-only?
So if you now want to spoof as Chrome to your bank, you spoof as Chrome to all websites.
Rather a foot-gun from Mozilla but on par for their recent choices.
This is the real clincher - websites discriminating against Firefox often don't know why. I assume it's because they don't want to be liable for using their software on a browser they haven't tested on. Or it's just the good ol' Google search on Firefox mobile thing, i.e. "we'll gimp it for no particular reason!"
As an early Linux user, I still remember running a Windows VM with IE installed, for years, just to do online banking. Heck, at my current corporate job all the Mac users (mostly the web designers) are given VMs to run IE11 to fill out their timecards, and use product management software. This is absurd, but real.
I'm no stranger to having to use VMs to do basic stuff online, but not everyone else is. And, to be honest, no one should have to set up a VM to use a browser they cannot trust, just to protect themselves from stupid drive-by malware.