zlacker

>>samwil+(OP)
I’m truly scared of Chrome.

It pushes proprietary features, from what I know it starts enforcing some analytics/ads without possibility to block it out and there are other thing too, but since I’m not really an user I don’t track them deeply.

Based on my personal experiences with IE, ActiveX, Adobe Flash and not being able to fill my taxes without Microsoft license (that was around 800$ back then for me not adjusted for inflation) I am afraid the same will happen with Chrome once it gets enough ground.

“Hey, sorry but we can’t sell you toothbrush because you’re using Safari/Firefox/Vivaldi/whatever. Please switch to Chrome and continue with your tracked and dissected purchase route.”

Is there any other anti-Chrome bastion than iOS’ Safari?

Old E2E runner installed Google Chrome on my machine (didn’t even ask but that’s user space on dev machine so whatever) which grew into my MacOS machine. It cannot run in background but there is another daemon that constantly updates it. Multiple times a day I get notification that new service has been installed to run in background.

I’m not sure if that’s something I want to fight for.

>>xlii+5h
Fighting Apple's monopoly behaviour around Safari is not fighting for chrome.

Since you asked, Firefox is the browser to use if you do not want chrome.

>>onli+Xh
https://gs.statcounter.com/

Firefox is not a serious competitor at this point and its tiny 4% of the market has already slipped to 3% in the last year.

That’s inching close to the “can we please drop IE11” sort of numbers from some years ago.

>>leland+xo
Are you suggesting that people shouldn't use it since it has a small market share, and thus should allow it to get smaller until it dies out?

>>Merely+Po
As it becomes more of a niche, also-ran browser, you can expect its quality (and so, its security) to fall as well.

The "use an inferior tool for philosophical reasons" mindset is already pretty unconvincing for me. A chromium fork maintained by a pro-user, pro-privacy team is the best of both worlds and doesn't expose you to Mozilla's fad-chasing.

>>Karuna+Wv
This is assuming that their funding is dependent on their share of browser use, or that Mozilla would get bored of Firefox if it stays at a lower share, and move on to other projects.

These assumptions would be true of a for-profit entity like Google, Apple, Microsoft, but it's not as directly applicable to Mozilla.

>>Lalaba+fz
I think the first assumption holds. There is a (conspiracy?) theory that Google's funding of Mozilla is based on a desire to avoid antitrust scrutiny. If Firefox usage continues to tumble, it ceases to be a meaningful competitor and the funding might be safely discontinued without legal consequences.

Mozilla exists as it does today entirely due to Google's largess.