Asklemmy

43890 readers

929 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

104

Using a Firefox fork makes any difference? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 month ago by NONE_dc@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

60 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Well, Mozilla seems to be making some pretty questionable decisions, So I'm considering switching browsers for the third (Is it the third?) time. The thing is, I really like the way Firefox works, so I've been trying out the more famous Forks like Waterfox and Librewolf, although I'm going for Floorp. However, I'm wondering: is using a fork enough? I mean, they are Forks maintained by other people, but is there a chance that whatever Mozilla does to Firefox could affect those Forks? Should I jump to a totally different browser like Vivaldi?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Nothing questionable that Mozilla does can affect the forks, as long as the forks have enough manpower to sustain themselves. There are, in fact, a few examples of projects with questionable leadership getting abandoned by their userbase, as everyone migrates to the fork.

I think what you need to worry about is whether the fork you're using has enough momentum and developer time that it's going to stay alive. That's a concern whether or not you have a concern that the central leadership is going to do something obscene.

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Except if they start to enshittify the gecko engine itself, like Google did with Manifest V3. There isn't a fork out there afaik that has the main power and expertise to maintain the complicated beast that is a browser engine

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Huh?

Manifest v3 is not the rendering engine. The issue with manifest v3 is that the extension format is changing, so it'll be more difficult to make ad blocker extensions work on Chrome. But a Chromium fork that is focused on privacy, of which there are several, and an ad blocker of which there are several, want to work together to make sure that their ad blocker is still working on the Chromium fork in question, it's hard for me to see it being insurmountably difficult for them to collaborate on an API that will let it happen.

It's not automatic, it can be difficult since they're diverging from Chromium. But it is not on the same scale as trying to maintain a divergent browser engine.

[–] cm0002@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Yea, I wasnt entirely clear, I brought up Manifest v3 as a "this is already complicated, and a browser engine is even more complicated" example

No Chromium fork maintains Mv2 anyways even though it is easier, and yes some do have their own builtin AdBlock and are able to function well that way. But I do not consider that ideal, one would be entirely dependent on their AdBlock implementation where as if a fork maintains Mv2 then you would be able to just change your extension if you don't like something about it