A little admiration of how easy UI customization is on Firefox, and how shitty Chromium looks.
LibreWolf FTW! 👍
When I was running it every other website would break, switched over to Mullvad Browser instead.
Mullvad Browser is the same but worse.
If you have websites break without noscript, you visit some really shady websites.
Be happy they break and dont claim the browser.
For my websites nearly never cause problems, and if they do Firefox tells me that they want to read my canvas data, send push ads and more, so its obvious.
If you have websites break without noscript, you visit some really shady websites.
not necessarily shady… probably designed specifically for Chrome.
Bad websites then. Do you have examples? Thats really bad.
Google, for example, did many demo websites that only worked on chrome in the past… I’ve also seen government website that only worked in Chrome… but unfortunately I don’t keep a list. A company I worked at in the past also had a training website that only worked in Chrome (I’m not revealing this one though…).
Edit: Just stumbled on this website: http://Thai5sushibar.com … not sure if it’s my extensions, but it doesn’t load in Firefox and loads in Chrome. Good rainbow rolls.
Uhm that site has no https and redirects somewhere else, dont feel like enabling javascript for that one.
And Ublock blocks it too. So yeah not a positive example
I just came about it today… but still, it works in Chrome and not Firefox. I have seen many others in the past though.
Why is it worse?
It always uses private browsing mode, read the other comments.
When I was using Librewolf maybe 4 years ago, it was never up to date with Firefox. I thought it could be a potential security risk, sometimes it took months to incorporate Firefox security updates. Has that improved recently?
LibreWolf updates follow Firefox updates pretty soon nowadays is my impression.
Personally I find it far more important that it’s not run by a company that will try its hardest to track your every movement on the web, but to each their own, I suppose.
You never tried to listen for stock Firefox’s traffic with Wireshark for sure.
People speak very good thing about Firefox but they like to hide and avoid the shady stuff. Let me give you the un-cesored version of what Firefox really is. Firefox is better than most, no double there, but at the same time they do have some shady finances and they also do stuff like adding unique IDs to each installation.
Firefox does is a LOT of calling home. Just fire Wireshark alongside it and see how much calling home and even calling 3rd parties it does. From basic ocsp requests to calling Firefox servers and a 3rd party company that does analytics they do it all, even after disabling most stuff in Settings and config like the OP did.
I know other browsers do it as well, except for Ungoogled and because of that I’m sticking with it. I would like to avoid programs that need no snitch whenever I open them. ungoogled-chromium + ublock origin + decentraleyes + clearurls and a few others.
Now you’re free to go ahead and downvote this post as much as you would like. I’m sorry for the trouble and mental break down I may have caused by the sudden realization that Firefox isn’t as good and private after all.
Firefox is better than most, no double there, but at the same time they do have some shady finances
So I went ahead and read that article and goodness gracious, does anybody actually read these links??? Because that link is a complete nothingburger. It’s a blog post from someone who never read a 990 before (standard nonprofit disclosure form) who thinks every other line of is proof of a scandal. But it’s not, it’s just a big word salad that is too long to read, so nobody will bother.
The most significant charge is (1) that the CEO makes too much and (2) the author doesn’t like that they contract out work to consultants who think diversity is good. And everything after that is LESS significant.
Every point made, so far as I can tell:
- Have assets worth $1.1 billion as of 2021
- Mozilla spent less on “expenses” from 2021 relative to 2020
- Revenue went up over the same time
- A lot of revenue was from royalties (e.g. agreements for default search)
- They disagree with the wording on a donate form about whether Mozilla “relies” on individual donations
- The CEO made $5.6MM
- They pulled out one expense, which appears to have been training/education relating to social justice topics
- They pull out a few more individual expenses and weren’t sure what they were.
This isn’t secret documents being handed to Deep Throat in a dark parking lot. There’s no smoking gun, no smoke, just a PDF with ordinary tables of expenses and revenue, and consultants who did diversity training. If that’s shady then, get ready to be mad about every non-profit ever.
It’s a blog post from someone who never read a 990 before (standard nonprofit disclosure form) who thinks every other line of is proof of a scandal.
Only in the USA a “non profits” turns profit. 😂
Pretty sure all non-profits strive to be cash flow positive, in the United States and otherwise.
There is a distinct type called a not-for-profit.
Should Mozilla be a not-for-profit instead? Trying to figure out the upshot of that distinction as it relates to this thread.
No of course not. It’s for very limited businesses like clubs. Obviously you can’t grow or really make products under that structure.
It was just a fun fact they do exist.
That’s all true, but why take a modified chromium instead of a modified Firefox?
Also clearurls and decentraleyes would be pretty much useless with Firefox and uBlock Origin.
Firefox is better than most, no double there, but at the same time they do have some shady finances.
I’m not going to refute this because it seems to me that article are right in several points. Also, we have to be honest, Mozilla is kind of stupid sometimes.
But if you care about the default search engine or privacy settings, you really just need to do some hardening and tweaks to make it very private in general. Chromium doesn’t have any of these settings, it even doesn’t have RFP btw.
and they also do stuff like adding unique IDs to each installation.
Looks like you can download Firefox through the Mozilla’s official HTTP/FTP repository that doesn’t trigger this ID token generation. Also this article motivates people to download Firefox installer from Softonic’s page:
Firefox users who prefer to download the browser without the unique identifier may do so in the following two ways:
- Download the Firefox installer from Mozilla’s HTTPS repository (formerly the FTP repository).
- Download Firefox from third-party download sites that host the installer, e.g., from Softonic.
Softonic have a really nice and privacy respectful privacy policy (obviously that’s not the case) in contrast with randomized pretty anonymous unique ID triggered by Firefox installer download. Mozilla’s generated ID feels more like a download counter than a tracker indeed.
I’m not trying to justify the Mozilla’s problems. They makes silly things sometimes, but being realistic, they do a better job taking care of their users privacy more than Google or even Brave.
we have to be honest, Mozilla is kind of stupid sometimes.
Yes.
Looks like you can download Firefox through the Mozilla’s official HTTP/FTP repository that doesn’t trigger this ID token generation. Also this article motivates people to download Firefox installer from Softonic’s page:
Yes, but still having to go around the main download page to get an untracked version is kind of annoying. Fuck Softonic, the rest of the information about the IDs still holds true.
Chromium-based browsers have inherently weaker extensions due to Manifest v3 and many other targeted attacks on adblockers. If you want a browser that works far better and provides a much higher level of privacy, use Mullvad Browser (worked on in collaboration with the Tor Browser, just without Tor integration) or LibreWolf. Both are Firefox forks with Firefox telemetry removed and anti-fingerprinting measures. You don’t need and absolutely should not install any extensions beyond the default installed in those 2 browsers (except perhaps a password manager), as that will dramatically damage the fingerprinting protection they provide. Both will have a much higher level of protection than you could ever realistically expect from any Chromium-based Browser.
I’d really rather have some harmless telemetry by Mozilla with a stronger ad blocker than Chromium bullshit. Ngl some people take privacy too seriously
I’m not ever going to use Mullvad Browser, I would rather use stock Firefox than that. I have LibreWolf installed as second browser and I like it at that, but I don’t see myself going away from ungoogled-chromium anytime soon.
Can we ask why you wouldn’t use Mullvad Browser? I’m honestly curious about that. From my wireshark tests, that thing only hits what you tell it to hit, nothing else. Am I missing something?
So… you don’t trust Google but you trust some shady VPN company? You aren’t wrong about quick wireshark tests, it does seem cleaner but long term trust and VPN companies are not something that go into the same sentence.
shady VPN company
First off, everything Mullvad deploys is open source, from their clients to their servers. They have been audited and checked by 3rd parties to ensure their servers are running the source code they released. They are not some “shady VPN company” like Nord. They have a continual commitment to transparency that has been tested and true for many years.
Second, MullvadVPN has very little to do with the development of the Mullvad browser. It’s just a fork of Tor Browser maintained by the Tor Project as a collaborative effort towards a uniform browser with the benefits of Tor Browser, but to be used without the Tor network. It is funded by Mullvad, but maintained mostly by the Tor Project. Do you not trust the Tor Project? The non-profit that has been open source and audited constantly throughout its lifespan? Here’s the source code on the Tor Project’s repo: https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/applications/mullvad-browser
The only Mullvad affiliation is the Mullvad extension that comes preinstalled (which you can uninstall, of course), the name, and the logo. That’s about it. No need to use their VPN, no need to buy anything from Mullvad, it’s basically just the Tor Browser without Tor.
Yes but no. Firefox does some creepy stuff, and I will need to verify this. But it also matters how much data websites get about you, and Ungoogled Chromium has no fingerprint protection
I will never understand how people expect software to gather no telemetry or metrics whatsoever.
We did fine without it for a very long time. We still do with a lot of software. It’s called voluntarily submitting a bug report and/or core dump.
If you ask a user to show you a “core dump” they’re more likely to shit on their floor and send you a photo than do what you actually mean.
Telemetry is absolutely crucial in determining what to focus on in development, to fix issues the users might not even realize exist. Especially for projects that aim at the general public. As long as it’s communicated clearly, used truly only for development purposes and an opt-out is available there’s nothing wrong about it.
You don’t use the technical term, but you do ask.
I’m not against telemetry, I’m against making it hundreds of different hidden options.
Especially software with hundreds of millions of users, that constantly has to deal with bleeding edge attack vectors and compatibility.
I am also pretty sure Firefox is equally if not more secure than Chromium. They just got some really bad reputation for not sandboxing everything.
The only issue they have with sandboxing is on Android, as they have yet to implement per-site process isolation despite it being present on desktop Firefox and Chromium Android for many years now. I’ve been tracking the development of Project Fission on Android (Firefox’s per-site process isolation) for years now and it still isn’t even ready for testing. Additionally, Firefox Android does not use Android’s isolatedProcess flag for sandboxing, which is another area in which it is behind Chrome. For that reason, I cannot recommend Firefox on Android, and instead recommend Cromite (fork of Bromite after its development was abandoned) which is based on Chromium.
Firefox shipped sandboxing on Android years ago (before chrome) and then removed it. I’m not sure you gain much from it on Android. It eats up ram making performance crap on cheap phones and apps already run in their own app user context to isolate what they can access.
Ah yes the trust worthy browser without tracking that comes with Google search by befault. lol
the great thing about foss projects, is that people fork them! try librewolf!
Browser and search engine are completely different, plus you can change it.
Except Firefox’s bookmark system on android is absolute crap and looks hideous.
Mobile browsers all suck.
What is your alternative? I want E2EE sync. Is vivaldi better? But honestly I wouldnt use their browser.
Firefox has E2EE sync??
Yup
Do you have a link to that info? Would that also work with Mullvad browser?
You know that famous The Dude meme? Applies here.
Not a chrome fan and I use Librewolf and I like how I’ve customised it. But that’s just, like, my opinion, man.
i love firefox but honestly right now i find edge to be much more aesthetically pleasing, especially with vertical tabs and grouping. if firefox can add these two items, i’d switch to firefox in a heartbeat (and they’re already adding tab groups)
Somewhere in this thread is a userchrome.css file on how to remove the “tree style tabs” header bar.
Install that addon.
Place that file in
~/.mozilla/firefox/XXXX-default-release/chromeasUserChrome.css(create that folder).Enable legacy customization in about:config
aren’t there extensions for this?
there is sidebery but i just like the edge version more. the extension wasn’t as fluid, plus i like how i can have native profiles for work, uni, and personal built in without extensions like profile switcher, which relies on a third party program. nothing against it; and i still donate to mozilla and firefox. i’m looking forward to seeing mozilla’s approach to tab groups though.
Mullvad Browser is another good option that is privacy focused. FF based.
Use a few to isolate different activities.
No.
Mullvad Browser is torbrowser without tor. Its basically the same as Librewolf, afaik Librewolf uses arkenfox user.js which is based on torbrowser.
But the Torbrowser has a “disk avoidance” principle, which means they always use “private browsing” mode as that never saves data on your hard drive.
This means it always deletes everything, session, cookies, tabs, searches, …
MullvadBrowser is not more private than Librewolf and ALSO has these things making it basically unusable for daily usage.
This may lead to people using it “for the private stuff” and a shitty browser for the rest. Which makes no sense, as Librewolf is the same.
And also, private browsing doesnt allow containers, meaning “multi account containers” and “temporary container” are nonfunctional. You dont need to run multiple damn browser sessions, just use containers.
And dont use Mullvad Browser its BS.
Different people have different use cases. I am not sure what point you are making beyond that it does not fit your set up.
What I wrote?
- no container support
- no stored session = not a browser normal people will switch to
- not more hardened or privacy optimized than librewolf
- no profile support too I guess, because private browsing.
But sorry your statement is correct, it is a privacy focused version of Firefox.
But not sure what the “use more to separate activities” means, I try to do that with containers and mail aliases and its already complicated. Running and updating 2 browser engines will not help here.
Such as using socials on 1, banking on another.
Also, a browser for your searches. I guess containers could do that but my understanding you still can get finger printed easily plus I could not get to use them consistently. Having different browsers made it easier, at least for me.
Containers are persistent and you can also use 2 profiles of the same browser and add a desktop entry to launch them separately.
Using separate browsers really is no good practice.
Fingerprintability may be already given by your IP.
Also the fingerprint defender addons help with randomizing some identifiers and fool naive scripts
Good VPN for IP issue.
“Using separate browsers really is no good practice.” can someone provide some support for this?
Mullvad Browser lets you reset the finger print with a click of button.
No that clears browser data, the fingerprint is very complex. If you mean cookies, Librewolf and Firefox can delete all but you can add exceptions where you want to stay logged in. Very handy, also not there in private browsing.
That’s exactly right.
Tor Browser is based on Firefox-ESR, while Librewolf is based on Firefox-Release. Because of this, they do not have identical features and preferences. Tor Browser and Mullvad Browser are designed for stability and minimal customization for the purpose of blending in with other users. Librewolf is designed to receive new features, better privacy defaults than standard Firefox, and allow users to more easily configure preferences. All of these browsers are valid options for privacy-minded people, depending on personal preferences, including separating activities/identities between different browsers. Container tabs are certainly good for privacy, and hopefully the feature can one day be used in private browsing mode.
Good points. I guess Librewolf will be a little more unique. ESR is a secure base, just pretty outdated soon.
All of these browsers are valid options for privacy-minded people
However they are bad options for those looking to switch from chrome. Even to myself it was very annoying that it always deletes everything, to someone who “already makes life hard on the web” for itself as some like to note in real life.
Mullbad Browser is fine for systems like Tails (not sure if they have it) and maybe for environments like libraries and such public places, where everything is our should be volatile anyway.Well yeah, people still using Chrome probably need to take baby-steps to reclaim little bits of privacy for themselves. For those users, switching to Firefox is probably the best option. But technically, Mullvad Browser and Tor Browser can both be configured to disable private browsing mode and be non-volatile. It’s just that normal users are unlikely to know that or to know how to do it.
That tweet is so weak, how are hundreds of people here upvoting and commenting on this?
Librewolf doesn’t respect your choice in system fonts if you uncheck “Allow pages to choose their own fonts, instead of your selections above”. I don’t use it for that reason.
Cant you set a custom font within Librewolf?
You can but it won’t be respected. It will continue to default to their included Noto fonts despite whatever font you select. You can test this yourself. I’m sure they do it for some “privacy reason” but if I wanted that trade off I’d simply use the Tor Browser or one of those hardened firefox profiles.
Strange, no local font should not be fingerprintable.
I actually started using Firefox in my early teens just because I liked the look of the Ui and themes better than Chrome.
I’ve also recently switched to Librewolf ;)
I started using it in my early 20s when it was still called “Firebird” because I was still salty that Netscape was dead and using IE sucked donkey balls (There was stuff like Konqueror and Lynx on Linux, but Konqueror and Lynx were…well they were Konqueror and Lynx). Mozilla 4 lyfe. “Technically” (with huge quotation marks) I’ve been more or less using the same browser since 1997.
Can Firefox install websites as web apps?
Desktop? No
Android? Yes
Well, there’s PWAsForFirefox
Yes, but in an unsupported manner.
https://github.com/filips123/PWAsForFirefox
Or as an extension:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/pwas-for-firefox/
No and thats not nice. Webapps work really well, I use hardened Chromium for Element until Firefox gets their shit together.
Just use Floorp. Gives you even easier UI customisation by allowing you to switch to the old UI via the settings, and also includes Webapp support and support for Workspaces.
That support sounds very interesting, can you attach screenshots of the webapps and workspaces?
There is a tool called webappmanager or something that I used in the past. Pretty overcomplex but works well.
I like my Firefox more: https://i.imgur.com/AWO9ss1.png … got rid of the title bar
thanks
Double thanks.
Did the same thing, though I’m handling the tabs with Sway
I’m doing that in arch.
not using Gnome Web smh /s
Falkon Ultras!
Never heard of LibreWolf but they say on their website that features like DRM are disabled, what does that mean if I want to view DRM content in my browser? I may be confused but currently with Firefox I already have problems with DRM sometimes. For example on Dell’s website I had difficulties viewing product videos on there, will they simply not play on LibreWolf or how does that work?
There is a toggle for DRM in both Firefox and LibreWolf that is off by default. It will prompt you when site would like to use it, so you can happily say no and launch your favourite file sharing software.
Create a second profile that you only use for DRM crap and enable DRM in the settings. Firefox also doesnt have DRM pre-enabled so that claim of them makes no sense.
See my post on konsole on how to make a desktop entry in Linux, where you can put profiles on the right click actions with icons and all.
It means that any website which using drm for playing content will not work by default,but u can enable it a again by modyfing config file.
from my experience there will be a popup asking to enable drm for this site when it requests it. no need to modify a file.
Yes, Librewolf is basically a fork of Firefox that makes different trade-offs, where it accepts more breakage than Firefox does, to gain a bit more privacy.
They both use hundreds megabytes of RAM just to render my static page. But for hydrogen web chromium use ~35M. This is shitty.
(w3m use 10M and in most case for searching we only need text-based browser)
These are not the only two available browsers, you know?
Do you mean Safari?
Name one other browser that is not based on Chromium. If it is based on Chromium, it has to deal with what Google throws at them.
I say this as an enthusiastic Brave user. Brave is great at what it does currently, but the more terrible stuff Google builds into Chromium, the more patches they’ll have to maintain. This can make it harder to maintain their fork.
Worse than that, most Chromium-derivative users aren’t Brave users. Many web apps already don’t work as well with Firefox’ JavaScript Engine (Gecko) as they do with Chromium. This gives Google immense power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)#Browsers_based_on_Chromium
Brave is extremely shady. Really, I used it and even created a script to install it on rpm-ostree distros, but damn that is shady.
That’s a solid criticism. Firefox + uBlock Origin or Librewolf are good desktop alternatives. But what’s the alternative on Android? Last time I checked, there wasn’t any on privacyguides.
Btw I do always turn off all their rewards and wallet stuff and follow most of the https://privacyguides.org recommendations.
Thanks for your help in making privacy-focused software available on Linux btw!
Fennec, F-Droids fork with proprietary bits removed. & uBlock of course.
I use Firefox + uBlock Origin on Android. You can still install add-ons for the app the same way you do on desktop.
Cromite has adblock. Vanadium too but it may break on on-GrapheneOS as it has security patches that break on regular android.
Mull is very fine for me, I use Vanadium and Mull, Vanadium for crappy sites (because mobile hardened firefox doesnt support as much sites as desktop for some reason). Vanadium is very likely more secure, unlike on Desktop where that is not easily said.
GNOME Web technically, based on WebKit. Idk if anyone uses that though.
GNOME Web, qutebrowser, Konquerer and Falkon. While they are pretty obscure, I personally use Falkon regularly on low end systems/RPi
Both qutebrowser and Falkon run on the QtWebEngine, essentially Chromium.
deleted by creator
qutebrowser uses chromium
Both OP and the author of the linked post explicitly say “Chrome”, not “Chromium”, and seem to imply those are the only two choices available to users.
If it is based on Chromium, it has to deal with what Google throws at them.
I wrote Chromiun in the description too. Chrome is simply what people use.
Plain Chromium, even with all GUI settings, all degoogle policy configs and flags enabled, contacts Google like hell.
I tried googeeteller and its scary.
Have not tried Vivaldi for a long time, but its fingerprinting resistance was nonexistent, it is filled with useless features and has no container support, so nah.
Fair point, but the engine is important.
I understand their blog post, and if I were to build a browser today, I’d probably do the same.
But that doesn’t mean this situation isn’t problematic. It’s similar to car-centric infrastructure: in this situation, for any individual, choice X makes sense, but that will make the situation even worse for the whole population. A cumulation of many tiny Prisoner’s Dilemmas.
