What happens to Firefox forks if Firefox dies?
-
Who isn't to say that the forks will just simply branch off and be self-sustainable? See, that's the beauty of open source and the licenses of which these things operate under. It would suck if it was as close-sourced as Windows is because if all of the forks functioned off of the licenses something as Windows operates under, we wouldn't have choice.
Without lots of money, it's not doable reliabily
-
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?
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.
-
They all die. To maintain that codebase millions of moneys are needed every year and dozens and dozens of devs working on it full time. There's a lot of boring and hard work that will never be replaced by some indie hackers working on their free time that needs to be done.
I read millions of "monkey" instead of "money" and was trying to understand if you were insulting browser developers or implying that thousands monkeys could to do the same work as a developer
-
Because web browsers are stupidly complicated and expensive to maintain. The only real competitor is google who has infinite money to maintain the chrome superiority and you need resources to maintain safety, fix bugs, and adhere to new standards, which get every time more complex (also thanks to google that doesn't want competitor). You need a lot of budget for that.
-
But since Chromium has soooo much of the market share, Firefox will always be playing catch-up. If Google decides to go full rogue and ignore W3C specs entirely and make up a bunch of their own shit, that devs then start to use because why not since the majority of their userbase use a chromium based browser, then Firefox can easily be taken out.
If Google decides to go full rogue and ignore W3C specs entirely and make up a bunch of their own shit, that devs then start to use because why not since the majority of their userbase use a chromium based browser, then Firefox can easily be taken out.
Which is basically the ending of the first browser wars, as far as I can remember. Internet Explorer had a little bit less market share than Google Chrome has nowadays, but still an overwhelming majority. Moreover, Internet Explorer had these IE-only tags and features, which further reinforced such things.
But here we are. Yes, Google Chrome and Google has an overwhelming majority right now, but so was IE (thanks to Microsoft's practices) back then. Google Chrome came at the right time with what people actually wanted at that time, and so was able to gain the upper hand, and eventually a chokehold.
My response though is more about "keeping things alive for its users", at least until such a breakthrough happens (maybe Servo has it?) or more pessimistically, until internet browsers fade away into obscurity (or perhaps just like IRC clients, it's still a thing, right?)
-
I read millions of "monkey" instead of "money" and was trying to understand if you were insulting browser developers or implying that thousands monkeys could to do the same work as a developer
If you have infinite monkeys on IDEs, some subset of 1000 of them will eventually make Firefox.
-
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?
Probably the same thing that happened when Netscape died
-
Probably the same thing that happened when Netscape died
It will become Seamonkey?
-
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?
Honestly, Firefox would be much better off without Mozilla. A donation model that would fund a small development team that could just focus on making a good browser would work just fine for this.
-
They die. Full stop.
Not even Microsoft had the strength to maintain a browser engine, that's why they moved Edge to Chromium, they gave up.
The dynamics of commercial companies and open source are completely different. Microsoft moving to Chromium was a business decision. They didn't see the value in spending money on a niche browser that didn't give them any leverage. People developing open source aren't doing it for profit or market dominance.
-
But microsoft is garbage company so that doesn't say much. They've been trying to remake their settings page for more than a decade and it is still shit.
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.
-
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.
