What happens to Firefox forks if Firefox dies?
-
With the enshittification of all-things-Google, a lot of us have left Chromium-based browsers for Firefox. But still, over the last 15 years, Firefox has gone from 30%+ market share to about 6% now.
With the big backlash against them over the last week, I've seen a number of people advocating for Librewolf and Waterfox -- Firefox forks focused on security and privacy -- but if Firefox loses what little revenue it has left, what will become of the forks if Firefox dies?
All the forks need to make a common engine independent of Mozilla. Pale Moon did it with Goanna and it is shared between Basilisk and K-Meleon as well. The big problem is that any new engine has to beat being filtered by Cloudflare or other WAFs that discriminate by user agent. A bold idea is for all the Firefox forks to rebase off of the new Ladybird engine and abandon the old Gecko codebase entirely.
-
It will become Seamonkey?
Better than Seaman, unless you've got a Dreamcast
-
Bad argument, Microsoft is among the three most valuable companies in the world, when something is important to them they get it done properly (e.g. hyperv is the best made part of windows, because they need it for azure). The settings page doesn't get them money, only nerds care if it's bad, a browser does.
Microsoft is a scourge and we be better off if it was nuked off the face of this planet. They are the principal cause of why computing has been and remains shiite since they began to exist. Their farcical speculative value based on gambling make-believe stock market is the bad argument. When it comes ti microsoft the only problem is that it's not being exterminated fast enough and also is the worst hypervisor except for vmware and also makes every other hypervisor worse by it's simple existence. Curse the demonic plague known as bill gates, may he be sent back to the windows eleventh circle of hell !
-
Microsoft is a scourge and we be better off if it was nuked off the face of this planet. They are the principal cause of why computing has been and remains shiite since they began to exist. Their farcical speculative value based on gambling make-believe stock market is the bad argument. When it comes ti microsoft the only problem is that it's not being exterminated fast enough and also is the worst hypervisor except for vmware and also makes every other hypervisor worse by it's simple existence. Curse the demonic plague known as bill gates, may he be sent back to the windows eleventh circle of hell !
LMAO
Microsoft pays for a lot of opensource development, you may not like it but you still need its work, including Lennart Pottering's salary (and don't even start with "systemd bad").
"Hyperv is the worst"... Shut up and come back when your hypervisor has proper GPU paravirtualization on all vendors.
-
The chances are some new foundation/non-profit will be created to fund its development.
It's either gonna be great like other community oriented project (like FreeCAD, Blender, or KDE), or corporate centric that prioritize industry needs (every single Linux Foundation project).
KDE has two browser that they already maintain. Based on the QtWebEngine. I'd love to see more development on them.
-
With the enshittification of all-things-Google, a lot of us have left Chromium-based browsers for Firefox. But still, over the last 15 years, Firefox has gone from 30%+ market share to about 6% now.
With the big backlash against them over the last week, I've seen a number of people advocating for Librewolf and Waterfox -- Firefox forks focused on security and privacy -- but if Firefox loses what little revenue it has left, what will become of the forks if Firefox dies?
We really need servo to take off...
-
LMAO
Microsoft pays for a lot of opensource development, you may not like it but you still need its work, including Lennart Pottering's salary (and don't even start with "systemd bad").
"Hyperv is the worst"... Shut up and come back when your hypervisor has proper GPU paravirtualization on all vendors.
I very well understand the trappings if soft power, of buying leverage and market dumping to buy market share.
You seem to be under the illusion tgat those things aren't the very cancer at tge heart of tech.
You need to step aside, my bulldozer has a date with microsoft datacenters and we're having pancakes, concrete pancakes with demonic server stuffing in between the layers.
-
Bad argument, Microsoft is among the three most valuable companies in the world, when something is important to them they get it done properly (e.g. hyperv is the best made part of windows, because they need it for azure). The settings page doesn't get them money, only nerds care if it's bad, a browser does.
It just shows that they only care when money is involved. They dont even have proper security, which is the reason why they even switched from Microsoft Servers to Linux based Servers.
They cant get shit right. Out of many things, one thing of them is great... cool, what about the rest?
-
It just shows that they only care when money is involved. They dont even have proper security, which is the reason why they even switched from Microsoft Servers to Linux based Servers.
They cant get shit right. Out of many things, one thing of them is great... cool, what about the rest?
You are missing the point. They care when money is involved, and yet they failed to maintain a browser engine, which would have (for the better or for the worse) a central part of most people's computing.
And yet, despite the browser being so important... They gave up and handed the cake to Google.
-
You are missing the point. They care when money is involved, and yet they failed to maintain a browser engine, which would have (for the better or for the worse) a central part of most people's computing.
And yet, despite the browser being so important... They gave up and handed the cake to Google.
Then let me correct myself.
Microsoft sucks in general and cant get shit right.
-
With the enshittification of all-things-Google, a lot of us have left Chromium-based browsers for Firefox. But still, over the last 15 years, Firefox has gone from 30%+ market share to about 6% now.
With the big backlash against them over the last week, I've seen a number of people advocating for Librewolf and Waterfox -- Firefox forks focused on security and privacy -- but if Firefox loses what little revenue it has left, what will become of the forks if Firefox dies?
Most will simply evaporate.
A few will continue to be maintained, but eventually drop off with like one or two slightly stangant active forks.
-
Honestly, people are overreacting to the ToS changes. Mozilla haven't actually changed what they're doing; they're just removing text they legally can't include since the definition of "selling data" varies by jurisdiction. It doesn't always mean literally selling user data. California is very strict about it for example.
What? Overreacting to. We store everything you type and will sell it??
-
With the enshittification of all-things-Google, a lot of us have left Chromium-based browsers for Firefox. But still, over the last 15 years, Firefox has gone from 30%+ market share to about 6% now.
With the big backlash against them over the last week, I've seen a number of people advocating for Librewolf and Waterfox -- Firefox forks focused on security and privacy -- but if Firefox loses what little revenue it has left, what will become of the forks if Firefox dies?
Well I hope someone takes up the source code and continuea to maintain it
-
What? Overreacting to. We store everything you type and will sell it??
Firefox don't store everything you type though.
-
Firefox don't store everything you type though.
When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.
And they removed the passage that states they will never sell your data
-
When you upload or input information through Firefox, you hereby grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information to help you navigate, experience, and interact with online content as you indicate with your use of Firefox.
And they removed the passage that states they will never sell your data
They already updated it to make the language clearer. This is the new version:
You give Mozilla the rights necessary to operate Firefox. This includes processing your data as we describe in the Firefox Privacy Notice. It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox. This does not give Mozilla any ownership in that content.
And they removed the passage that states they will never sell your data
That's because the definition of "sell data" varies by jurisdiction, so they can't make that claim (nor can any company that uses ads). In particular, it's very strict in California's CCPA, and includes third parties using data for analytical purposes even if no payment is made.
-
System shared this topic onSystem shared this topic on
