> Firefox is guilty of every single thing Chrome is accused of
If you misrepresent what Chrome is "accused" of, sure. I have 0 attachment to Firefox as a permanent solution, but it's WAY better than Chrome on every issue, and the only thing Servo has over Firefox is it hasn't existed in a usable form long enough to push the same kind of updates.
If you disabled updating in Firefox today, you would have a more complete version of Servo that is just as private and secure. You may not like Mozilla as a company, but Firefox is the best tech option for open source web browsing and it's not even close. That's why browsers like Librewolf that just barely tweak Firefox are possible.
I have to address these issues, though, because your descriptions of them really bury the lede.
> It includes advertisements in the New Tab page without user consent
> It shared browsing history without user consent
> It enabled a new tracking protocol for advertisers without user consent
While the ad tracking is not great, everything you posted is opt-out. I know you take specific issue with being automatically included as "opt-in" on update, but you don't even have the option to opt-out of everything in Chrome.
> It blocked uBlock Lite from their store without notice
That was a mistake remedied very quickly. Contrast that with Chrome where Ublock is now broken. Raymond Hill is the person speaking in your link, and he still explicitly recommends Firefox in his releases.
> It's ~80% funded by Google
And? That Google has money to throw around (and most privacy zealots specifically won't fund anything) is not a mark against Firefox. There's nothing to indicate Firefox is controlled by Google, and you may be surprised to know a lot of these competitors fund each others OSS because some of the tech is critical infrastructure.
> Their main focus lately has been white-labelling dubious products
I have to ask, are you reading these links or getting them from a friend? This was also opt-out, and as soon as this information was discovered, Mozilla immediately dropped them. You make it sound like they knew about this and powered through. Should they drop their partnership with haveibeenpwned on the off-chance they might secretly own an ad company?
Librewolf is not barely tweaking Firefox, it's disabling all the ads and tracking, exactly like Chromium does.
Also uBlock Lite was not "remedied quickly", it took Mozilla a month to react, only after media pressure, gorhill describing their interactions as "hostile and absurd". He refused to reupload the extension to the store, where it is still missing to this day.
The last thing that separates Firefox from Chrome is uBlock Origin, which is a very thin line. Apart from that, the entire product and political strategy is the same than Google's.
We need an alternative before it's too late.
If you misrepresent what Chrome is "accused" of, sure. I have 0 attachment to Firefox as a permanent solution, but it's WAY better than Chrome on every issue, and the only thing Servo has over Firefox is it hasn't existed in a usable form long enough to push the same kind of updates.
If you disabled updating in Firefox today, you would have a more complete version of Servo that is just as private and secure. You may not like Mozilla as a company, but Firefox is the best tech option for open source web browsing and it's not even close. That's why browsers like Librewolf that just barely tweak Firefox are possible.
I have to address these issues, though, because your descriptions of them really bury the lede.
> It includes advertisements in the New Tab page without user consent
> It shared browsing history without user consent
> It enabled a new tracking protocol for advertisers without user consent
While the ad tracking is not great, everything you posted is opt-out. I know you take specific issue with being automatically included as "opt-in" on update, but you don't even have the option to opt-out of everything in Chrome.
> It blocked uBlock Lite from their store without notice
That was a mistake remedied very quickly. Contrast that with Chrome where Ublock is now broken. Raymond Hill is the person speaking in your link, and he still explicitly recommends Firefox in his releases.
> It's ~80% funded by Google
And? That Google has money to throw around (and most privacy zealots specifically won't fund anything) is not a mark against Firefox. There's nothing to indicate Firefox is controlled by Google, and you may be surprised to know a lot of these competitors fund each others OSS because some of the tech is critical infrastructure.
> Their main focus lately has been white-labelling dubious products
I have to ask, are you reading these links or getting them from a friend? This was also opt-out, and as soon as this information was discovered, Mozilla immediately dropped them. You make it sound like they knew about this and powered through. Should they drop their partnership with haveibeenpwned on the off-chance they might secretly own an ad company?
[1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/releases/tag/1.62.1b1