The LWN article explores various forks of Firefox, categorizing them by their motivations. Some, like Waterfox and Pale Moon, prioritize maintaining legacy extensions and pre-Quantum features. Others, like Librewolf and IceCat, focus on enhancing privacy and removing proprietary components. The article highlights the challenges these forks face, including maintaining compatibility with the rapidly evolving web, security updates, and attracting enough developer support for long-term viability. It concludes that while these forks cater to niche audiences seeking specific features or philosophies, the significant undertaking of maintaining a browser makes it difficult for them to truly compete with the resources of a project like Firefox itself.
Despite significant criticism and a year-long controversy, Mozilla continues to promote and partner with OneRep, a paid service that removes personal information from data broker sites. Security expert Brian Krebs reiterates his concerns that OneRep's business model is inherently flawed and potentially harmful. He argues that OneRep benefits from the very data brokers it claims to fight, creating a conflict of interest. Further, he highlights the risk that OneRep, by collecting sensitive user data, could become a valuable target for hackers or even sell the data itself. Krebs questions Mozilla's continued endorsement of OneRep given these ongoing concerns and the lack of transparency around their partnership.
Hacker News users discuss Mozilla's continued promotion of OneRep, a paid service that removes personal information from data broker sites. Several commenters express skepticism about OneRep's effectiveness and long-term value, suggesting it's a recurring cost for a problem that requires constant vigilance. Some propose alternative solutions like Firefox's built-in Enhanced Tracking Protection or opting out of data broker sites individually, arguing these are more sustainable and potentially free. Others question Mozilla's motives for promoting a paid service, suggesting potential conflicts of interest or a decline in their commitment to user privacy. A few commenters defend OneRep, citing positive experiences or emphasizing the convenience it offers. The overall sentiment leans towards distrust of OneRep and disappointment in Mozilla's endorsement.
Summary of Comments ( 39 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43361959
HN commenters discuss the challenges faced by Firefox forks, primarily focusing on the immense effort required to keep up with Mozilla's rapid development cycle. Several highlight the difficulty of maintaining compatibility with the vast web platform, especially considering the resources needed for testing and bug fixing. Some suggest that forking is not a practical solution for addressing specific user grievances and that contributing to the existing Firefox project is a more effective approach. The lack of resources available to smaller teams is a recurring theme, with commenters pointing out that even well-established forks like Waterfox struggle to maintain feature parity and security. The conversation also touches upon the difficulty of attracting users and the need for a truly compelling differentiator beyond superficial customizations.
The Hacker News post "A Look at Firefox Forks" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43361959) discussing the LWN article about Firefox forks has a modest number of comments, generating a brief discussion around the challenges and motivations behind forking such a large project.
Several commenters focus on the sheer complexity and resource intensiveness of maintaining a Firefox fork. One commenter emphasizes the immense effort required, citing the enormous codebase and the constant need to keep up with security updates. They point out that even seemingly small changes can have cascading effects, making the task daunting for smaller teams. This difficulty is echoed by another user who points out the crucial, yet often overlooked, challenge of maintaining and updating the build system for such a large project.
The discussion also touches upon the motivations for forking Firefox. Some commenters speculate on the potential benefits, such as removing telemetry or unwanted features. One comment specifically highlights the desire for a truly minimal browser, suggesting that even if privacy-focused forks existed, the desire for a smaller, less bloated alternative is a valid driver for some individuals considering taking on the substantial development burden.
Another area of discussion revolves around specific existing forks and their relative success. Waterfox is mentioned, with a comment noting its shift in direction. Pale Moon is also brought up, highlighting its attempt at a significant divergence from the main Firefox codebase and the challenges encountered as a result. The discussion around these forks reinforces the core theme of the difficulty in maintaining a project derived from Firefox, and how diverging too far can lead to increased maintenance burdens.
A few comments address more technical aspects. One user suggests a potential approach to forking, involving statically linking libraries to reduce dependencies and simplify maintenance. However, this suggestion also acknowledges the potential drawbacks of such an approach.
In summary, the comments on the Hacker News post primarily revolve around the complexity of forking Firefox, the motivations behind such endeavors, and the challenges faced by existing forks. The discussion doesn't offer definitive solutions but provides valuable insight into the considerations surrounding this complex undertaking. While not a lengthy discussion, it offers a pragmatic and grounded perspective on the realities of forking a large and intricate project like Firefox.