Note the difference between (a) the user making changes to Firefox and compiling her own customised version and (b) hoping that someone else compiles a custom version and makes all the user's preferred changes to the source and removes all the defaults that the user wants removed. Option (a) offers the computer user some control. Option (b) is completely outside the control of the computer user.
The best one can do with option (b) is hope that someone managing a "fork" has addressed all their concerns.
Is having control useful for "real privacy". Is it useful for data collection and surveillance. Who should have control.
Firefox has over 37 million lines of code. The compiled program requires hundreds of megabytes of storage space. Based on LOC and binary size it is larger than the Linux kernel. Compiling Firefox on "average" computers will take hours and will require a powerful computer. It is not an easy process and can easily fail due to its numerous dependencies.
I use a text-only browser that compiles in less than a minute on an older, underpowered computer to a 1.2 MiB static binary. There are no mandatory dependencies. It is from this browser that I type and submit this reply.
Is having control useful for "real privacy". Is it useful for data collection and surveillance. Who should have control.
Firefox has over 37 million lines of code. The compiled program requires hundreds of megabytes of storage space. Based on LOC and binary size it is larger than the Linux kernel. Compiling Firefox on "average" computers will take hours and will require a powerful computer. It is not an easy process and can easily fail due to its numerous dependencies.
I use a text-only browser that compiles in less than a minute on an older, underpowered computer to a 1.2 MiB static binary. There are no mandatory dependencies. It is from this browser that I type and submit this reply.