515
Firefox looks so much better than Chrome
(tux.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2024
515 points (93.7% liked)
Linux
45501 readers
1902 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
I think librewolf scrubs most of that stuff out. I'm basing that off of using burpsuite's proxy server though. On vanilla firefox it captures so much crap going out. I havent tried with wireshark though.
Librewolf is my second browser, but I don't see me using it everyday. I like chromium rendering more and the dev tools.
Chrome devtools are just bullshit. Firefox has the better implementation imo
Let me ask you, how much do you use the dev tools and for what?
Not OP, but every single day, for web development. I find them quite a bit more intuitive and easier to use then the ones Ungoogled-Chromium comes with.
I use them for security assessments and completely agree with the other person. I find Chrome so unintuitive and ugly compared to Firefox.
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.
Because chromium rendering is better than Firefox's and I personally like the dev tools better and my usual target audience in dev uses Chrome. I have LibreWolf as the secondary browser but I don't see me ever liking the way Firefox renders the web.
Got any examples of popular websites that render better on Chrome?
I personally prefer Firefox's rendering, or even Edge's old and long deprecated EdgeHTML (Trident fork) renderer.
IME Chrome performs way too much antialiasing on graphics that are not to scale, and their default font hinting technique doesn't match Windows or even common Linux distro defaults.
It feels a lot like the enhanced speed and performance come from the shortcuts taken in the renderer, akin to Safari... except that Safari also opts to just refuse implementing new APIs and draft specs.
Text heavy sites in particular are not really that nice to read in Chrome for me personally.
Usually it’s not about entire websites, it’s the small detail like the font rendering smoothness and a few others.
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.
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.
I dont use Mullvad VPN, only the browser. I do use NordVPN when I need to show as being in another country, but mostly to circumvent geolocation and keep some stuff from my ISP. I know commercial VPNs are just switching who sees your data, but I'm good having a company that's not my ISP and in my country looking at that. And yes, I distrust Google to no end. The same applies to Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Samsung, etc. There are not many names out there I trust. At the end of the day, anything not under your control, you need to choose how much you trust it, if at all.
Oh yeah.
Me too, the reason why I use ungoogled-chromium is mostly because of that and because when you take Chrome and remove all the tracking and spyware it runs way faster ahah. There are many people and projects that came together in the ungoogled-chromium community and the source code is scrutinized and cleaned up like nothing else.
We're lucky that there are so many nice developers out there just providing these tools for the community to break the ropes that tie us to big tech. Those devs are the real heroes in my book.
Yes!
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
More or less, but you know as we all as I do that there are extensions for that... and Ungoogled Chromium doesn't snitch on me so...
No extension can change the core of how a browser interacts with the web, especially not with manifest v3.
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. Every point made, so far as I can tell:
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.
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.
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'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.
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:
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.
Yes.
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.
I've never wiresharked my workstation to verify but I absolutely review my DNS logs on my pihole and I have never seen what you're describing.
Go ahead then.