It's becoming so un-loved and so neglected by users (and specially developers!) this days that I fear that tomorrow there won't be an alternative to chrome at all :(.
Those who lived the Internet Explorer 6 should be the ones to rise up first.
But everyone seems to have forget how bad it was and how hard it was to destroy that monopoly.
Developers should be the first to rise for Mozilla.
I think we own Firefox the good things we still have on the web. They fought for standards, for example...
Please, create a movement or something... Make noise... But don't neglect Firefox.
We need alternatives and we all are responsible for allowing projects like Firefox to exist (by using them)...
It's very sad to be ungrateful!!!
Everyone should take clues on the post from the OP...
and tbh..using my google account to sync my bookmarks is gonna beat any value-add firefox can offer. i have chrome on my iphone just to open safari pages in it to bookmark-sync them for later.
When you lose Internet, how are Chrome, ping, and curl all connecting? Am I missing something?
Just an aside: I frequently see people say things like "X software is bad because [thing that makes it completely unusable]". This is always very surprising to me, because it's obviously a bug state, and not the expected operation of the program. Granted, the program being completely broken for you is a perfectly good reason to use a different program, but you can't really use it to call the program "bad", because almost by definition, it's something that very few other users are seeing. If a program instantly crashes whenever you try to launch it, it's a bit silly to rate it one star in your app store of choice, because (almost certainly) the failure state is both unexpected and fixable.
So, case in point, it's simply not true that "Firefox is so bad on Linux". Most users are not seeing absurdly slow websites, nor broken connections. This is obviously some kind of bug. I'm not going after you in particular, but this is a very common thought pattern on this site, and I want to highlight it.
I've used it under openSUSE (either Leap or Tumbleweed), under Lubuntu, under kubuntu, and now under KDE Neon and I never had any issue with it!
Naturally, there are lots of people that can't say the same! But my experience has been mostly a breeze :)
There are some decisions I don't agree with... But that's life...
Admittedly, I do keep Ungoogled Chromium & Brave around for the occasional Chrome-centric website, but I only end up using them a couple times a month.
I am only a causal Slack user, so while I haven't had any issues on Firefox using Slack, I could imagine there being issues.
But I don't know if this is because of changes to Firefox, Slack/Zoom, Linux, Nvidia drivers, or something else. And I have no way to find out, short of retraining as a desktop performance engineer.
As far as apps choking on it, considering Slack can't be arsed to make their calls work on Firefox, I have an idea who to blame, and it's not Mozilla.
I know it is off topic. However, can anyone share info if Firefox is better at this point considering memory usage?
If you have swap space, it's even worse, because there's not noticeable memory pressure until you've always consumed a good bit of your swap. So I frequently find myself in a situation where I start compiling something or launch a game, and have my computer immediately slow to a crawl. Check htop, and it's always the browser I have open, taking ~13 GB of memory and another 4 GB of swap. It's certainly true that "unused RAM is wasted RAM", but that only holds when you can reclaim low priority RAM when you need to launch something new. Browsers are really bad at doing that, so they sit rather uncomfortably next to the other programs on your desktop.
The only extensions I would need are for ad blocking, which is solved with a DNS blocker on my router, avoiding the need to set it up on all my devices separately, and a password manager, which I find I don't actually need since copy/pasting from a terminal with pass works well enough. So now all my browsers run as vanilla as possible, with maybe a built-in dark theme.
In this specific case Keysmith can record any input on any page and play it back. While the functionality is undoubtedly useful, the keylogger aspect sounds like a huge privacy risk. Their privacy policy[1] "promises" they will never collect or sell any sensitive data, but frankly why should I trust it or trust that it won't change without my knowledge? Especially with a proprietary app I can't inspect the source code of.
The Chrome Web Store submission process sounds like a nightmare, but I'm more concerned that such an invasive extension was ultimately allowed on both platforms, and that it was approved on Firefox in just 24h.
A well-made extension these days with no ulterior motives will be scoped tightly to only the site it's designed for or not even that, if it only modifies the browser chrome. I have like 20-30 extensions currently installed on my workstation, but only three of them have global content access (uBlock, Bitwarden, Dark Reader - all FOSS). The rest are highly site-specific and don't even see any other sites, so I'm not too worried about them.
In any case, the process (both Chrome/FF) should be as transparent as possible so a dev knows what they are dealing with. I can't imagine the frustration to have to deal with unhelpful automated responses.
For what it's worth, Firefox asks for an unminified source bundle during the submission process (including for all updates), and Chrome does not. This doesn't mean that anyone over at Mozilla is actually looking through that source, but it's an interesting difference.
> So we created a Firefox developer account, submitted our extension, and girded ourselves for another rough ride.
Again, if the permissions had been fixed by this point, and Google had accepted it, why would you assume a rough ride from Mozilla?
But some other points still stand, like how Firefox got back to us quickly about the "delay", and how they showed our position in a queue. Google, on the other hand, was worse than just opaque about the process.
Why were we worried about Mozilla? Because things were so bad with Google that we figured something had to go wrong with Mozilla. So we put our psychological guard up just in case.
Sounds like a good company to do business with.
