Adobe tells you to use Chrome, not Firefox
Friend gave me access to his Adobe account (I'm never giving Adobe money again), and it looks like they don't even support Firefox. That means I'm not using even the one remaining browser-based Adobe service that's left.
You're viewing a single thread.
Mildly infuriating = I have been parroting Firefox evangelism mindlessly.
This sub was complete shit on reddit too, why did I think it'll be any better here?
What does evangelism have to do with blatant monopolistic anti-consumer practices being forced on users?
Why do I have to switch out Firefox, which CAN run anything that chrome can, just because some bullshit company said so.
It's a blatant anti-consumer practice, that is becoming more and more common, just because Firefox can still block ads, while chrome cannot. It's bullshit and more people need to talk about it.
Meanwhile, Mozilla refuses to implement feature parity with chromium in certain places they seem to be too invasive.
Also, chromium browsers can block ads.
Tell me 1 area where firefox isn't at feature parity with chrome, unless you're referring to mozilla choosing to not drop manifest V2 (which is a feature that chrome doesn't have... fully functional adblockers and all) and by chrome, i mean chrome. 90% of people don't use chromium-based browsers, they use chrome, so I think it's more fair to compare firefox to chrome, instead of any of the chromium-based browsers.
There's the topic of this conversation, WebUSB. I happen to believe that a missing feature here for Firefox is a good thing, mind you...
I had never even heard of it before and upon looking it up... I struggle to grasp why any web app, website or anything on the internet would ever need access to my USB devices, isn't USB device management the OS's job? Like, call me stupid here, but I see no genuine use case for this.
Some oscilloscopes use the browser, e.g. OpenScopeMZ from digilent. Then there's Via for configuring custom keyboards, other than that nothing comes to my mind.
I don't fully agree with these, but these are the cases I've heard of:
I think these are better served with extensions or specific browser protocols that communicate with native apps in order to keep the crazy web world more isolated from the high-value computer world, but what do I know? My guess is that someone at Google went "You know, we're creating a lot of these specific protocols to communicate with webcams, printers, and now we want to do authentication dongles. You know what? They all use USB? Why don't we just create a general way to access USB?"
In the immortal words of Dr. Ian Malcolm:
Username checks out. Bad take.
Definitely this. I am kind of tired of people. Mindlessly worshiping Firefox as if Mozilla doesn't have a bad financial track on It's CEOs giving themselves raises and also being relatively heavily funded by Google
I want to enjoy Firefox and use it as my main browser, but it just simply isn't as polished as some of the chromium browsers out there. Which is saying a lot because Firefox used to be the number one browser 20 years ago.
They have absolutely no audience in mind when developing Firefox aside from "everyone", and his other browsers continue implementing of a variety of different functions out of the box, Mozilla either:
A. Implemented as a browser extension that gets abandoned (split screen tabs) B. Never gets implemented at all. So a third party steps in and makes an inferior version (tab groups)
And then in some cases, removing functionality from the browser under some lame excuse like "nobody was using this", when in fact, someone was using that feature.
All of that coupled with a lack of any transparency from the development team with something like a fleshed out road map or anything like that. Instead just a string of promises. Which would be fine and expected out of an open source project, if Mozilla wasn't a multi-million dollar corporation.
Of course, on Lemmy, the open source federated network, everyone here will glorify and put Mozilla on a pedestal as The Lord and Savior of FOSS and the internet as a whole. When there is absolutely nothing that makes them special
When there is absolutely nothing that makes them special
Being the only viable non-Chromium browser on the market is pretty special.
It's definitely popular to beat up on popular things online, for some reason. I don't get it, but it is. Keep in mind, though: your problems with Firefox are mild annoyances which are solvable (make an extension, contribute to the project, fork the repo). Chrome's problems (web integrity API, privacy sandbox, manifest v3) are inherently anti-consumer and have the potential to be disastrous for the web as a whole.
Mindlessly worshipping and understanding the advantage of a truly FOSS browser over one owned by the biggest data harvesting organization the world has ever seen are two pretty different things.
Honestly it feels to me like there are some people here paid to be trolls by Google, because their arguments are so incredibly lame that I can't see any other reason they'd exist.
As if Mozilla isn't paid millions by Google
It is, but it got to this because of people like some in this comment thread.
"Why have variety, why try anything different, competition? No idea what that is, I'ma just keep using my google chrome, to search things on my google search engine, that comes up with google youtube results, while serving me google ads and google trackers on my already google owned web browser. Oh, and at the end of the day, let me check my google gmail to see if I've missed anything from the day. And adblockers? They are piracy, manifest v3 brings a lot of features to the table and isn't just a shallow attempt to kill adblockers."
It's OK if you don't wanna use firefox, but it needs to exist, not just symbolically and bullshit like this needs to be talked about more. People need to complain about it, instead of blaming mozilla for "not having feature parity" (which is complete bullshit).
And what is your point exactly?
I think many people don't understand what a total chrome (or chromium) monopoly would mean for the internet, it would mean that google will have full control over everything on the internet, they could snap their fingers, implement some bullshit then dare people to do something about it. And I don't get the "firefox isn't polished" argument. What about it is less polished than chrome or anything chromium based?
I do agree that mozilla isn't perfect, but for the better or for worst, it's the last thing preventing a total google monopoly on the internet...
Honestly, as a Firefox user, I agree. The Firefox evangelism gets too much for me that I'm genuinely concerned it's going cult-like. There's over-enthusiasm (in which I've fell victim to) and then there's hounding people for bothering to choose a Chromium-based browser.
I use Firefox because it works best for most of my web-browsing workflows, but it has its issues - split screen tabs is one, it helps with my workflow for submitting database entries to MusicBrainz or RateYourMusic. Vivaldi has it, Firefox doesn't, so I'll use Vivaldi when I need to, even if I think Firefox has a bit more polish than Vivaldi. That being said, Vivaldi is more willing to add features that power users coming from Firefox or old, Presto-era Opera want.
I do feel like the evangelism is actually toned down in the Firefox-specific Lemmy community, oddly enough (at least on lemmy.ml). In fact, the top post as of this comment is complaining about the privacy issues with Firefox's upcoming Fakespot integration, and the comments are in agreement.