We all must switch to Firefox

14

With the news that Microsoft is killing EdgeHTML and going with Google’s Blink, the danger of the web becoming a webkit/blink monoculture is very real and very close. Firefox is the only browser that does not use webkit or blink, it uses Firefox’s in-house Gecko engine and it’s a solid engine. This is a critical time in the history of the web and we must come together and fight for openness and diversity on the web. Firefox is a hair slower than Chrome but it’s worth putting up with this, we must

Comments (14)

14 responses to “We all must switch to Firefox”

  1. dcdevito

    Nah I'm good. You can keep using it, fight the good fight chap. I'm using the one that gives me the best experience. And without it tied to Google? This is a win for us consumers.

  2. wright_is

    I've been a Firefox user since day one, well, day minus several hundred, back when it was called Phoenix (2002) and Firebird (2003), before it got sued into using Firefox.

    I use Edge as a backup.

  3. Tony Barrett

    Current releases of Firefox are actually very good indeed - definitely on a par with Chrome. I use both daily for various reasons. If you do switch completely to Firefox, you won't have a problem.

  4. SherlockHolmes

    I have a problem with threads that start like "We all must do this or that." I like to decide for myself what I use or find best. And on the topic: Im a Firefox user since the Netscape days.

  5. paragon

    As someone that primarily uses Chromium-based Vivaldi and is not a webdev, nor do I understand the open-source/'Fight the Firefox fight' please explain why it's important for Firefox and Gecko to be supported, and how it contributes to 'openness and diversity on the web', as opposed to the status quo in webdev.


    Appreciate your insights :)

    • wright_is

      In reply to paragon:

      It means that the open standards are better adhered to. Think back to the days of Netscape and Internet Explorer. IE got a majority share and MS started to push through IE-only features, which meant a lot of web sites didn'T work with Netscape or were partially broken. You only got the "full experience" with IE.

      When Firefox appeared, the move back to standards started and the IE-only bits and pieces started to disappear, although IE was very slow at getting standards compliant, so webdevs had to break sites so that they still worked with IE.

      Then Chrome came along and Google is now trying to push through its own proprietary extensions as well. As long as there are two or three "popular" rendering engines out there, with enough support, then this annexation of the standards and branching away from the standards can be held in check.

      Some of the changes aren't bad, but they benefit Chrome and Google first. It is better to keep the standards standard and everybody adheres to them.

      Then there is the problem of the extra telemetry data that Google gets through Chrome. Microsoft aren't as bad, but you really need an open source browser, like Chromium or Firefox whose main purpose isn't to send back as much information to base as possible.

      Again, without the likes of Firefox and to a lesser extent Vivaldi and its fellows, people will probably switch in droves to Chrome, which is a bad move, in terms of data protection - unless you are fully committed to sharing all your information with Google.

      This is one of the problems with Android, for example, the browser defaults to Chrome, just like Windows defaulted to IE back in the 90s, And like IE, you can't deinstall Chrome if you don't like it. Given that Google has reached monopoly status in the smartphone world (over 85% market share), this is, IMHO, a big problem.

      I know what Chrome does and actively avoid giving information back to Google as much as I can. But most people don't. My wife came up to me in the Spring and asked me to "de-Google" her smartphone.

  6. Paul Thurrott

    So, I think you're kind of missing the point. Having a standard for web rendering is, in fact, a net positive; no one should pine for the days of "This site best viewed on [name of browser here]" banners.


    And web browser makers can and should still innovate on user experience. This can include some Firefox strengths, like privacy and ad blocking.


    That said, I did just see some Firefox usage statistics that worry me, and I agree that this company "needs" to survive.

    • wright_is

      In reply to paul-thurrott:
      Having a standard for web rendering is, in fact, a net positive;

      Which is why we have a standards body. Having the likes of EdgeHTML and Firefox's Gecko mean that it is harder for, for example, Google to ignore the standards and start making their own extensions to the standard, like Microsoft did in the 90s. That said, EdgeHTML never really caught up with the standards and was more half-hearted than the others, for some reason.

    • Daekar

      In reply to paul-thurrott:

      As long as the various engines comply with the web rendering standards, having more than one is a good thing... it's when they don't comply that issues arise. Just like when Microsoft owned the web via Internet Explorer back in the past, we don't want to hand the keys to the kingdom to any single entity - especially Google.

    • willr

      In reply to paul-thurrott:

      You are wrong on this one Paul. Having 1 rendering engine is not a net positive. And in this case, the 1 engine is effectively owned by Google, which is a very bad problem, we cannot have Google owning the whole web.

    • Bdsrev

      In reply to paul-thurrott:

      I'm sorry but webkit/blink owning the web is not a net positive, it's a bleak and dangerous monoculture where Google controls the entire internet

  7. ronaldjanson

    I also think about it....

  8. Bdsrev

    I'm seriously considering it after this news (Edge switching to Blink)

  9. lordbaal1

    Does Gecko save you 15% or more loading a website?

Leave a Reply