> that will not change as long as Chrome has 80% marketshare. You need to sacrifice a little for freedom.

And herein lies the rub. 20% of people, at best, will sacrifice convenience for freedom.

Firefox and Chrome overtook IE because they were move convenient to use (Firefox had tabs and extensions, Chrome had a more reliable multi-process architecture and more CSS/JS/... features faster).

IE didn't die until YouTube publicly dropped support for it.

Chrome is a lot more robust and secure against exploitation than Firefox is. This is a very unpopular fact, and every time I point it out the rabid Mozilla people get upset, despite it being the truth.

I use Ungoogled Chromium.

There’s no such thing. You use a Chromium that doesn’t report data back to Google, but the entire project is a Google project that pushes Google’s aims on the web.

Could you provide some sources for the true facts you're asserting?

I solved the security problem by using Firefox in VMs on Qubes OS. Works great.

Mmmm is there any source or a deep analysis from you for such a statement?

Once upon a time that may have been a very hard to dispute thing, but I'm not so sure anymore.

For starters, recent Firefox versions do proper process isolation per domain, similar to Chrome, which has long been claimed to be the primary security benefit of Chrome-based browsers.

In addition, the Firefox codebase is partially rewritten in Rust. This effort is incomplete and likely always will be, but it's still significant. Keep in mind that according to Google, 70% of security vulnerabilities in Chrome are related to memory unsafety!

* * *

I have used the internet since, well, since back when a 56k modem was a dream. I have had zero security incidents via a browser. On the other hand Google collect data on me 100% of the time I start a Chrome browser. "What if" versus "this actually happens" is the typical argument.