News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by santoshalper on Friday January 13, 2023 @12:35PM (#34370981)
"Gecko (Firefox). Down to 4% market share, mismanaged by Mozilla which prioritizes pushing its toxic politics over improving the browser."

Unlike the author, who clearly has no agenda or axe to grind.

Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by Y_Y on Friday January 13, 2023 @12:47PM (#34371184)
I love Firefox the browser, but they keep throwing stuff at me that I have no interest in. After the Pocket debacle and the Mr. Robot thing I stopped paying attention, but I bet if I found out what colorways was or that new little pinned tab thing then I'd get upset too.

All that to say, I think a personal blog is a better place to grind axes than the start page of a hugely important software tool.

Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by awelxtr on Friday January 13, 2023 @01:58PM (#34372276)
I'm ootl, Pocket debacle?
Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by johnny22 on Friday January 13, 2023 @03:15PM (#34373271)
really out of the loop then, because it was like 5 years ago or so :) Firefox add a button to integrate a third party service (pocket) in the default install and i think it added it to your current pinned icon areas (where extension button go). It was also not implemented as a proper extension, so you couldn't actually remove support for it, but only the icon.

Later on Mozilla did buy pocket, so it was no longer third party.

Anyways, a lot of people got super mad with the way they went about it.

Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by awelxtr on Friday January 13, 2023 @03:18PM (#34373310)
thank you!
Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by sfink on Friday January 13, 2023 @03:33PM (#34373507)
Is the presence of Pocket pushing toxic politics, or is it the Mr. Robot extension?

I understand that people have complaints and want to hang onto others' past mistakes, but I fail to see how either of those (Pocket&Robot) can be classified as either toxic politics or axe grinding.

They're both monetization tactics that many people disliked. Which somehow resulted in people finding Mozilla untouchable, because apparently nobody else has problematic monetization attempts?

Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by wussboy on Friday January 13, 2023 @12:49PM (#34371231)
Right? Because that’s totally why Firefox’s market share has gone down and is not at all related to a billion dollar corporation ruthlessly and relentlessly pushing its competitor…
Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by lolinder on Friday January 13, 2023 @01:04PM (#34371469)
Mozilla is hopelessly mismanaged.

The entire Android app was overhauled a while back, dropping functionally and decreasing stability, and has since been pretty much ignored even though it is still missing features and is still painfully clunky and prone to crash. The developer tools on the desktop app were ahead of Chrome but have stagnated, and they're slow to adopt new standards, but they somehow find time to add things no one asked for like Colorways and a VPN.

I want Firefox to get its traction back, but it's hard to cheer for Mozilla or blame Google when I see them twiddling their thumbs like this.

Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by bbarnett on Friday January 13, 2023 @02:10PM (#34372415)
I want Firefox to get its traction back, but it's hard to cheer for Mozilla or blame Google when I see them twiddling their thumbs like this.

I don't think this will happen. I think they will just fade away. They are completely dysfunctional now.

Some say it is due to the whole woke movement, and it may be, but really, I see it as due to politics.

By that I mean, politics is nothing but divisive, and if you introduce it into a company, as a corporate culture, you're going to regret it.

IMO, work is where you leave religion, and politics(the other religion) at home.

And Mozilla is paying the price for letting it in.

Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by mistrial9 on Friday January 13, 2023 @03:09PM (#34373204)
> due to the whole woke movement

yes, and forcing out there reasonable CEO for a purity test, long ago.. HELO BRAVE

Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by mysteryalias on Friday January 13, 2023 @06:43PM (#34375486)
Brave is just reskinned Chrome and the current CEO hates gay people. You do you buddy.
Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by tristan957 on Friday January 13, 2023 @08:00PM (#34376100)
Their point is that Eich was forced out of Mozilla on what the user claims was a "purity test". Then he went to start Brave and no one seems to care, hence it was all just theater while he was at Mozilla.
Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by _emacsomancer_ on Friday January 13, 2023 @08:23PM (#34376249)
Brave is more than reskinned Chrome. It's one of the only Chromium-based browsers that's both open-source and has some security/privacy features. (E.g. anti-fingerprinting things, an adblocker based on uBlock Origin (rewritten in Rust) built-in (and not as an extension, so will not be limited by Manifest V3).)

Eich is not unproblematic, of course (in addition to the anti-gay marriage issue, there is/was also issues of 'covid-scepticism'[1]). And the cryptocurrency stuff in Brave is uninteresting to me (fortunately it's opt-IN though and not opt-out).

And I still think, on the desktop at least, Firefox still has advantages over Brave (and even more so over other Chromium-based offerings).

[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20230104010454/https://www.nytim...

Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by kome on Friday January 13, 2023 @03:15PM (#34373274)
"The entire Android app was overhauled a while back, dropping functionally and decreasing stability"

And yet it's the only mainstream browser for android that support, natively, ad-blocking. Using chrome on mobile is a joke.

Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by mattlondon on Friday January 13, 2023 @04:00PM (#34373823)
Edge on android blocks ads.
Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by rejectfinite on Saturday January 14, 2023 @06:03AM (#34379249)
Using Adblock plus...
Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by VancouverMan on Friday January 13, 2023 @01:10PM (#34371562)
Regardless of how much or how strongly Chrome may have been advertised, we can't forget that a lot of IE and Firefox users ultimately decided to try Chrome, then went ahead and actually installed Chrome, then actively used Chrome, and most importantly, decided to keep on using Chrome instead of the other browser(s).

All of that didn't just happen because of advertising. It happened become Chrome offered very compelling benefits over its competitors.

For many users, Chrome was faster, lighter, more secure, and offered a better all-around user experience than its competitors did. Even now, that's still largely the case.

Advertising alone can't make that happen.

Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by unethical_ban on Friday January 13, 2023 @01:41PM (#34372021)
Firefox didn't always work as well in an SSO corporate environment, where Chrome was able to shoe-in for IE.

From a sysadmin perspective, Firefox having its own cert store instead of relying on system store was an extra hurdle for corp IT people.

Then there is the fact that Chrome goes out of its way to integrate with Google's other properties which they market to corporations to replace Office.

So I'm saying, I believe FF would have done better if they tried harder to integrate with corporate environments without compromising on their capability and independence. Name recognition is a big thing.

Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by kome on Friday January 13, 2023 @03:17PM (#34373299)
"Regardless of how much or how strongly Chrome may have been advertised, we can't forget that a lot of IE and Firefox users ultimately decided to try Chrome"

Google for years installed Chrome using installers of other applications, like malware. I am talking of 10 years ago, that was common practice for google, on windows. So a lot of users found themselves using Chrome without even knowing they were using chrome.

Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by EMM_386 on Friday January 13, 2023 @08:44PM (#34376426)
> we can't forget that a lot of IE and Firefox users ultimately decided to try Chrome, then went ahead and actually installed Chrome, then actively used Chrome, and most importantly, decided to keep on using Chrome instead of the other browser(s).

I'm in this camp. I had used Firefox for 20 years, literally since it was just a zip file called Pheonix/Firebird.

I switched to a Chromium-based browser kicking and screaming, but it came down mostly to speed for me, and some website incompatibility (which I can't blame wholly on Firefox).

I'd obviously tried Chrome since day 1, and was impressed and checked back in from time to time, until I decided it was time to finally switch over. I still support Mozilla and Firefox and don't want to see less competition in browser engine space. As long as Google continues to fund it (mostly out of anti-competitive concerns I'd imagine) I don't see them going anywhere.

Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by londons_explore on Friday January 13, 2023 @12:55PM (#34371321)
Mozilla had a lot of goodwill, particularly in the tech world. With the right strategy, they could have translated that into thousands of influential websites encouraging users to use Firefox.

Things like releasing features for firefox users first, because devs like firefox and it had better devtools, would have kept the firefox userbase afloat.

Instead the mozilla devtools have been allowed to fall behind, web apps are no longer developed firefox-first, and mozilla lost it's opportunity.

Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by WoodenChair on Friday January 13, 2023 @11:35PM (#34377426)
> Right? Because that’s totally why Firefox’s market share has gone down and is not at all related to a billion dollar corporation ruthlessly and relentlessly pushing its competitor…

The irony here is that the billion dollar corporation (Google is who OP is referring to) actually funds Firefox's development. We looked into this in one of our recent podcast episodes called "How Does Mozilla Make Money?": https://pnc.st/s/kopec-explains-software/bdecab32/how-does-m...

Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by londons_explore on Friday January 13, 2023 @12:52PM (#34371269)
> pushing its toxic politics

While I wouldn't describe Mozilla leadership as that... I don't think you'll find many people who think Mozilla leadership have made good strategic decisions in the last 5 years.

Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by password4321 on Friday January 13, 2023 @01:04PM (#34371476)
It might be worth removing the word "toxic"; is it not clear that "Mozilla prioritizes pushing its [...] politics over improving the browser"?

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/

Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by DonHopkins on Friday January 13, 2023 @01:05PM (#34371480)
The CEO of Mozilla infamous for his toxic homophobic anti-gay-marriage politics of hate and bigotry resigned from Mozilla of his own free will, and was not fired or pushed out, as his GamerGate fanboys love to falsely claim.

(Some of many examples of people pushing that false claim: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14994164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24145537 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7566200 )

He confirmed the fact that he resigned in his own words on his very own blog. In fact, the Mozilla board begged him to stay. The idea that he was pushed out or fired is just yet another false GamerGate conspiracy theory.

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/faq-on-ceo-resignation/

>1. Brendan was not fired and was not asked by the Board to resign. Brendan voluntarily submitted his resignation. The Board acted in response by inviting him to remain at Mozilla in another C-level position. Brendan declined that offer. The Board respects his decision.

>Q: Was Brendan Eich fired?

>A: No, Brendan Eich resigned. Brendan himself said:

>“I have decided to resign as CEO effective April 3rd, and leave Mozilla. Our mission is bigger than any one of us, and under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader. I will be taking time before I decide what to do next.”

>Brendan Eich also blogged on this topic.

https://brendaneich.com/2014/04/the-next-mission/

>Q: Was Brendan Eich asked to resign by the Board?

>A: No. It was Brendan’s idea to resign, and in fact, once he submitted his resignation, Board members tried to get Brendan to stay at Mozilla in another C-level role.

Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by agloeregrets on Friday January 13, 2023 @03:12PM (#34373231)
Lol that whole page was clearly built to make some people happy but goes WAY too far down the rabbit hole to make sure the homophobes feel included.
Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by throw-7462637 on Friday January 13, 2023 @03:48PM (#34373686)
How sad and tired that you have to keep dragging up this old story. I’m not going to go in the merits but may I suggest it’s time for forgiveness and reconciliation?
Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by mndgs on Friday January 13, 2023 @01:05PM (#34371492)
Really surprised that FF is only 4% market share now: what did I miss? Never followed the browser wars, just used what I liked then (chrome -> opera -> FF for the past year or so..). Turns out I'm on the sinking ship...
Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by vkou on Friday January 13, 2023 @01:51PM (#34372162)
> what did I miss?

You missed the pre-installed browser and applications bundled with your computer becoming good enough that ~nobody is going to www.firefox.com to download a browser on a fresh install. This isn't 2004, you no longer need to spend three hours downloading software to make a fresh install of Windows usable.

That, and a weak mobile app.

Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by dblohm7 on Friday January 13, 2023 @02:28PM (#34372664)
> Really surprised that FF is only 4% market share now: what did I miss?

The explosion of mobile.

Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by orangeoxidation on Friday January 13, 2023 @02:36PM (#34372769)
> what did I miss

Mobile is eating the web. Mobile (Android - it's all Safari on iOs) Firefox is a bad experience.

Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by tristan957 on Friday January 13, 2023 @08:02PM (#34376111)
Mobile Firefox is awesome to me. I use it everyday.
Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by _emacsomancer_ on Friday January 13, 2023 @08:15PM (#34376185)
There are advantages on Android to using a Chromium-based browser unfortunately, cf. https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.ht...
Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by cabbagesauce on Saturday January 14, 2023 @06:16AM (#34379327)
>Mobile is eating the web. Mobile (Android - it's all Safari on iOs) Firefox is a bad experience.

Allow me to second this!I have a not-so-small bookrmark collection (~600). When I discovered FF tags, I was ecstatic: assigning multiple tags to a single bookmark makes navigating the pile really good.

But, as soon as I discovered that neither iOS nor Android version of Firefox supports tags, I felt betrayed. Add to it the inability to export full FF profile (such peculiarities as about:config overrides, extension lists etc) and you end up with a very disgruntled user. So I ended up with trusting desktop Safari. Turns out it has _similar_ feature called bookmark description.

I still resent Chromium-based products, because UX is wrong to me. But FF is certainly mismanaged if not sabotaged and the upper level management will bury it. Or the time will make FF almost irrelevant.

Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by RealCodingOtaku on Friday January 13, 2023 @01:44PM (#34372066)
Also, "Goanna (Pale Moon), a fork of an old version of Gecko. At 0% market share and always at risk of not catching up with the newest web standards that Google invents".

Google don't make web standards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_standards

Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by agloeregrets on Friday January 13, 2023 @02:13PM (#34372457)
Ahahah... We have someone who thinks that the W3C/OWF has any real power. That's hilarious.

This is what actually happens: 1. Google (Who is a member of both W3C and OWF) announces a plan/ships a feature. 2. With 80% of the browser market, people use it or get excited by it. 3. The W3C/OWF ratifies the feature as a standard.

This is literally how 90% of web standards happen today.

Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by scarface74 on Friday January 13, 2023 @06:38PM (#34375442)
No one in targeting US users are going to use a feature not supported by Safari/iOS
Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by pwdisswordfish9 on Sunday January 15, 2023 @10:47PM (#34396562)
What is "OWF" here? Open Web Foundation? If so, that's such a weird choice to mention. It has approximately nothing to do with browser standards. It's not even as if it's a ceremonial figurehead or something. It just has absolutely no place in this discussion...
Re:History of Web Browser Engines from 1990 until today by RealCodingOtaku on Monday January 16, 2023 @04:53AM (#34398810)
Being a member does not give anyone the authority to define a standard. One can propose and vote.

Take the recent example for instance, Web Standards Body W3C rejects Google’s ad targeting proposal[0]

Browser market share calculation is always dodgy[1].

[0] https://tittlepress.com/tech/2238586/

[1] https://www.sitepoint.com/how-browser-market-share-is-calcul...