Hacker News Reader

Comment by dfrage | Hacker News Reader

According to Wikipedia, it's run as an "independent subsidiary". Echoing AnIdiotOnTheNet, it's in your face bullshit that clearly tells us about Mozilla's mindset today.

The Firefox security story has sailed compared to Chrome's, Pocket was independent but bundled in from June 2015 to February 2017, the Mr. Robot stunt, and Cliqz. Through the lens of corporate governance, three strikes and you're out till a long period passes with good governance.

Support for X search doesn't matter in the start up a browser with a single tab to do a financial transaction and then close the browser, which is how I've been using a single installation of Firefox, and will now be using Chrome. That scenario doesn't demand a good session manager, something that Firefox's transition to Quantum has ruined as I say in another comment in this topic.

View on HN

It's absurd to complain about pocket and use it as an excuse to use a browser made by fucking google.

> According to Wikipedia, it's run as an "independent subsidiary".

It still means its goals aligns with Mozilla's, so you have to trust them as much as you have Mozilla. (Though of course, it should have been open sourced by now.)

But really, if three strikes and you're out is your policy, you really shouldn't use Chrome - it has an order of magnitude more strikes, and they are far worse, at that. But to each their own.

You're confounding security with privacy strikes. How many 3rd party vulnerability security strikes does Google have? And I distrust Pocket at least as much as I distrust Mozilla.

> You're confounding security with privacy strikes. How many 3rd party vulnerability security strikes does Google have?

Well, you were referring to Cliqz, Pocket and Mr. Robot, which where trust issues, not security issues. Google has at least as many of those.

> I distrust Pocket at least as much as I distrust Mozilla.

That makes sense, because they're the same. You should distrust Google even more.

It should be obvious I disagree in scoring Cliqz, Pocket and Mr. Robot as security issues. Of course, many if not most security issues are in the subset of privacy issues as well, but surely you see the difference between not wanting others to know what web pages you've visited and not wanting your bank account emptied by a criminal?

And when it comes to security, not hazarding my bank accounts and credit cards beyond what's unavoidable in doing business on the net, Google is massively more trustworthy than Mozilla. If for no other reason than Mozilla having entered its corporate endgame.

Firefox is not fit for purpose for any of my use cases, although I've still have a copy of Waterfox that I can move to my new Linux installation with a abandoned but adequate session manager for one use case. Maybe Mozilla will fix those two dozen plus bugs and feature requirements for a good session manager before no one cares anymore and I'll continue using that line of browsers if/when Waterfox becomes unsustainable.

There is absolutely nothing you can say that will make me use a program that doesn't work for me, and Firefox does not work for me except for the most casual of browsing.

> not wanting your bank account emptied by a criminal?

So are you saying that Cliqz, Pocket and Mr. Robot led to emptying even one person's bank account?

I don't know why you keep bring up the session manager. If you don't like Firefox's features, fine, go ahead and use another browser and ignore Mozilla's role in protecting the open web. But it has nothing to do with security or whatever.

> Well, you were referring to Cliqz, Pocket and Mr. Robot, which where trust issues, not security issues. Google has at least as many of those.

Yes, but here's the thing: these issues have shown that Firefox is not at all more trustworthy, they just don't have as easy a time getting away with it because they aren't in the lead. I have no reason to trust that they won't be just as bad if they think they can get away with it.

They don't have an easy time getting away with it because they're largely a community project and exist with the aim of doing better. That will remain the case - even in the unlikely future where they'll be in the lead. In the present day, however, we don't even need them to be in the lead - they just need a somewhat significant market share.

Furthermore, trustworthiness is a spectrum, and Mozilla's issues are still peanuts compared to Google's. It's a valid stance to criticise those issues, but it's flawed reasoning to use those as a reason to jump to Chrome.

I'm not making an argument for which browser to support (what a stupid concept, who cares), I'm making an argument that Mozilla has violated its users trust in the past and no one should reasonably expect they won't do so again.

> (what a stupid concept, who cares)

The reason I care is because it's not about supporting a piece of software, but about protecting the open web, and therefore civil rights.

> I'm making an argument that Mozilla has violated its users trust in the past and no one should reasonably expect they won't do so again.

And I'm making the argument that you can expect Mozilla to not violate its users' trust anywhere near the extent that Google does, and that you can expect its community to keep it in line to ensure that.

> open web, and therefore civil rights.

Civil rights? Really?

Yes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com