▲ 2130 ▼ Firefox is really innovating (feddit.uk) submitted 8 months ago by flamingos@feddit.uk to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world 240 comments fedilink hide all child comments Toot
[–] PhoreTwunny@lemmy.world 84 points 8 months ago (3 children) https://www.pcmag.com/news/mozillas-new-ceo-its-time-to-evolve-firefox-into-an-ai-browser permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] BananaOnionJuice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 8 months ago (5 children) I really hope Firefox gets forked, and ends up like OpenOffice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] HairyHarry@lemmy.world 56 points 8 months ago (1 child) zipzap your wish is granted: https://librewolf.net/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vintor@retrolemmy.com 37 points 8 months ago (3 children) LibreWolf is not a fork, though. It's a customised version of FF, so every shit they introduce has to be painstakingly removed by the LW team, provided that is even possible. (See Manifest V3 in Chrome.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 26 points 8 months ago (1 child) It's literally impossible to maintain a modern browser without extreme funding and competent engineers permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kraiden@piefed.social 7 points 8 months ago It's not "literally" impossible, but it's damn close. permalink fedilink source parent [–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 16 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child) LibreWolf is not a fork, though. It certainly is. They duplicate the code, creating a "fork" under their control, and make independent changes to the code. That is all that is needed to satisfy the "fork" definition. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vintor@retrolemmy.com 4 points 8 months ago (1 child) Interesting, because there is no mention of that anywhere on their website. Indeed, the workflow overview in their source repo clearly states that in order to build LibreWolf, you need the current Firefox source tree, and this is reflected in the Makefile, which fetches the Firefox source tarball associated with the same version. Nothing points to a repository they created at any prior point. Can you link to some official statement that supports this claim? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child) there is no mention of that anywhere on their website. A custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom. This project is a custom and independent version of Firefox, ... LibreWolf is a free and open-source fork of Firefox, ... This repository contains all the patches and theming that make up LibreWolf, as well as scripts and a Makefile to build LibreWolf. There also is the Settings repository, which contains the LibreWolf preferences. They take Firefox, make changes to it, then release it. As such, it is a fork. More specifically a "soft fork" since they continue to pull changes from upstream (Firefox). EDIT: Oh I see you're focused on the "duplication of the code" part. A bad phrasing on my part. It doesn't matter the specifics of how they pull in the source code, it is pulled in and used as the basis for librewolf's modifications. They could even pull it in on first launch and compile the latest version of Firefox with their modifications for subsequent launches and it would by all means be a fork, since they are shipping a modified version. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vintor@retrolemmy.com -4 points 8 months ago (1 child) Ok, thanks for clarifying. I was asking for a statement in support of your initial claim that turned out to be completely wrong: they didn't duplicate the code upon creation of the project, they didn't create a fork under their control, and they don't make independent changes to the code. What they are doing is customising the current code of Firefox at the time of compiling the LibreWolf project. If you really insist that that is a fork, then one of us doesn't understand what a fork is, and I'm not going to continue a fruitless argument. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago* they didn't create a fork under their control I'm sorry but this is simply incorrect (See 1,2,3), as I have previously stated. You could point to sources that agree with you though if you disagree. 1: https://itsfoss.com/librewolf/ 2: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/LibreWolf 3: https://lwn.net/Articles/1012453/ These are some examples that use "fork" in describing Librewolf. What they are doing is customising the current code of Firefox at the time of compiling the LibreWolf project. You have described the creation of a fork. ... I'm not going to continue a fruitless argument. I'm here if you wish to discuss further. permalink fedilink source parent [–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 8 months ago I hope they consider making a hard fork in light of this news. I use it and it's great. Perfect sweetspot of privacy, simplicity and "power tools". Many people might not want the default automatic cookie clearing on exit, but you can easily disable it or, better yet, whitelist domains you want to stay logged into. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zwiebel@feddit.org 13 points 8 months ago (1 child) Theres a bazillion forks permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViatorOmnium@piefed.social 22 points 8 months ago (1 child) A bazillion understaffed forks ranging from unusable because they have more tinfoil hats than developers, and unusable because the single developer doesn't understand why remote debugging shouldn't be enabled by default. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2 points 8 months ago (1 child) I tried Florp or whatever and it just kept crashing. Went back to good old FF real fast. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwiebel@feddit.org 2 points 8 months ago LibreWolf has been really solid for me permalink fedilink source parent [–] jherazob@fedia.io 11 points 8 months ago (3 children) The issue is not the code, is all the infrastructure needed to develop something as heavy as a browser, which is what they have captive permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] BananaOnionJuice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 8 months ago Definitely we need a fork that's independent of Mozilla with a real non profit organisation behind, and these days we also need a permanent non-profit clause. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago permalink fedilink source parent [–] Mika@piefed.ca 3 points 8 months ago Can you elaborate on infrastructure part? I thought dev efforts are the key issue? permalink fedilink source parent [–] hayvan@piefed.world 8 points 8 months ago Firefox has many excellent forks already. permalink fedilink source parent [–] real_squids@sopuli.xyz 4 points 8 months ago waterfox has been pretty good for me permalink fedilink source parent [–] EpeeGnome@feddit.online 25 points 8 months ago (1 child) “AI should always be a choice—something people can easily turn off." “It will evolve into a modern AI browser and support a portfolio of new and trusted software additions.” How does he not get how contradictory these positions sound. Really a missed opportunity to brand themselves as the browser without AI bullshit and gain users who want to get away from that crap. Sure, they promise it'll have an off switch, but even if that's true, they're still wasting a lot of their very limited budget pursuing it. Really shows where their priorities are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 10 points 8 months ago Also, it's already not true. You can turn AI off, but not in the regular settings - you need to enter about:config and search for "browser.ml". Anything that's only available in about:config is not "easy" for the average user, and "browser.ml" isn't exactly an intuitive name, either. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus 3 points 8 months ago At least they seem commited to keep it a choice instead of the mandatory crap that pops up everywhere. Choice is fine, and maybe it helps to get Firefox back onto peoples computers so they keep their seat at the table when important decisions regarding the web are made. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BananaOnionJuice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 8 months ago (5 children) I really hope Firefox gets forked, and ends up like OpenOffice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] HairyHarry@lemmy.world 56 points 8 months ago (1 child) zipzap your wish is granted: https://librewolf.net/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vintor@retrolemmy.com 37 points 8 months ago (3 children) LibreWolf is not a fork, though. It's a customised version of FF, so every shit they introduce has to be painstakingly removed by the LW team, provided that is even possible. (See Manifest V3 in Chrome.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 26 points 8 months ago (1 child) It's literally impossible to maintain a modern browser without extreme funding and competent engineers permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kraiden@piefed.social 7 points 8 months ago It's not "literally" impossible, but it's damn close. permalink fedilink source parent [–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 16 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child) LibreWolf is not a fork, though. It certainly is. They duplicate the code, creating a "fork" under their control, and make independent changes to the code. That is all that is needed to satisfy the "fork" definition. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vintor@retrolemmy.com 4 points 8 months ago (1 child) Interesting, because there is no mention of that anywhere on their website. Indeed, the workflow overview in their source repo clearly states that in order to build LibreWolf, you need the current Firefox source tree, and this is reflected in the Makefile, which fetches the Firefox source tarball associated with the same version. Nothing points to a repository they created at any prior point. Can you link to some official statement that supports this claim? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child) there is no mention of that anywhere on their website. A custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom. This project is a custom and independent version of Firefox, ... LibreWolf is a free and open-source fork of Firefox, ... This repository contains all the patches and theming that make up LibreWolf, as well as scripts and a Makefile to build LibreWolf. There also is the Settings repository, which contains the LibreWolf preferences. They take Firefox, make changes to it, then release it. As such, it is a fork. More specifically a "soft fork" since they continue to pull changes from upstream (Firefox). EDIT: Oh I see you're focused on the "duplication of the code" part. A bad phrasing on my part. It doesn't matter the specifics of how they pull in the source code, it is pulled in and used as the basis for librewolf's modifications. They could even pull it in on first launch and compile the latest version of Firefox with their modifications for subsequent launches and it would by all means be a fork, since they are shipping a modified version. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vintor@retrolemmy.com -4 points 8 months ago (1 child) Ok, thanks for clarifying. I was asking for a statement in support of your initial claim that turned out to be completely wrong: they didn't duplicate the code upon creation of the project, they didn't create a fork under their control, and they don't make independent changes to the code. What they are doing is customising the current code of Firefox at the time of compiling the LibreWolf project. If you really insist that that is a fork, then one of us doesn't understand what a fork is, and I'm not going to continue a fruitless argument. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago* they didn't create a fork under their control I'm sorry but this is simply incorrect (See 1,2,3), as I have previously stated. You could point to sources that agree with you though if you disagree. 1: https://itsfoss.com/librewolf/ 2: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/LibreWolf 3: https://lwn.net/Articles/1012453/ These are some examples that use "fork" in describing Librewolf. What they are doing is customising the current code of Firefox at the time of compiling the LibreWolf project. You have described the creation of a fork. ... I'm not going to continue a fruitless argument. I'm here if you wish to discuss further. permalink fedilink source parent [–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 8 months ago I hope they consider making a hard fork in light of this news. I use it and it's great. Perfect sweetspot of privacy, simplicity and "power tools". Many people might not want the default automatic cookie clearing on exit, but you can easily disable it or, better yet, whitelist domains you want to stay logged into. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zwiebel@feddit.org 13 points 8 months ago (1 child) Theres a bazillion forks permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViatorOmnium@piefed.social 22 points 8 months ago (1 child) A bazillion understaffed forks ranging from unusable because they have more tinfoil hats than developers, and unusable because the single developer doesn't understand why remote debugging shouldn't be enabled by default. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2 points 8 months ago (1 child) I tried Florp or whatever and it just kept crashing. Went back to good old FF real fast. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwiebel@feddit.org 2 points 8 months ago LibreWolf has been really solid for me permalink fedilink source parent [–] jherazob@fedia.io 11 points 8 months ago (3 children) The issue is not the code, is all the infrastructure needed to develop something as heavy as a browser, which is what they have captive permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] BananaOnionJuice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 8 months ago Definitely we need a fork that's independent of Mozilla with a real non profit organisation behind, and these days we also need a permanent non-profit clause. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago permalink fedilink source parent [–] Mika@piefed.ca 3 points 8 months ago Can you elaborate on infrastructure part? I thought dev efforts are the key issue? permalink fedilink source parent [–] hayvan@piefed.world 8 points 8 months ago Firefox has many excellent forks already. permalink fedilink source parent [–] real_squids@sopuli.xyz 4 points 8 months ago waterfox has been pretty good for me permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HairyHarry@lemmy.world 56 points 8 months ago (1 child) zipzap your wish is granted: https://librewolf.net/ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vintor@retrolemmy.com 37 points 8 months ago (3 children) LibreWolf is not a fork, though. It's a customised version of FF, so every shit they introduce has to be painstakingly removed by the LW team, provided that is even possible. (See Manifest V3 in Chrome.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 26 points 8 months ago (1 child) It's literally impossible to maintain a modern browser without extreme funding and competent engineers permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kraiden@piefed.social 7 points 8 months ago It's not "literally" impossible, but it's damn close. permalink fedilink source parent [–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 16 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child) LibreWolf is not a fork, though. It certainly is. They duplicate the code, creating a "fork" under their control, and make independent changes to the code. That is all that is needed to satisfy the "fork" definition. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vintor@retrolemmy.com 4 points 8 months ago (1 child) Interesting, because there is no mention of that anywhere on their website. Indeed, the workflow overview in their source repo clearly states that in order to build LibreWolf, you need the current Firefox source tree, and this is reflected in the Makefile, which fetches the Firefox source tarball associated with the same version. Nothing points to a repository they created at any prior point. Can you link to some official statement that supports this claim? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child) there is no mention of that anywhere on their website. A custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom. This project is a custom and independent version of Firefox, ... LibreWolf is a free and open-source fork of Firefox, ... This repository contains all the patches and theming that make up LibreWolf, as well as scripts and a Makefile to build LibreWolf. There also is the Settings repository, which contains the LibreWolf preferences. They take Firefox, make changes to it, then release it. As such, it is a fork. More specifically a "soft fork" since they continue to pull changes from upstream (Firefox). EDIT: Oh I see you're focused on the "duplication of the code" part. A bad phrasing on my part. It doesn't matter the specifics of how they pull in the source code, it is pulled in and used as the basis for librewolf's modifications. They could even pull it in on first launch and compile the latest version of Firefox with their modifications for subsequent launches and it would by all means be a fork, since they are shipping a modified version. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vintor@retrolemmy.com -4 points 8 months ago (1 child) Ok, thanks for clarifying. I was asking for a statement in support of your initial claim that turned out to be completely wrong: they didn't duplicate the code upon creation of the project, they didn't create a fork under their control, and they don't make independent changes to the code. What they are doing is customising the current code of Firefox at the time of compiling the LibreWolf project. If you really insist that that is a fork, then one of us doesn't understand what a fork is, and I'm not going to continue a fruitless argument. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago* they didn't create a fork under their control I'm sorry but this is simply incorrect (See 1,2,3), as I have previously stated. You could point to sources that agree with you though if you disagree. 1: https://itsfoss.com/librewolf/ 2: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/LibreWolf 3: https://lwn.net/Articles/1012453/ These are some examples that use "fork" in describing Librewolf. What they are doing is customising the current code of Firefox at the time of compiling the LibreWolf project. You have described the creation of a fork. ... I'm not going to continue a fruitless argument. I'm here if you wish to discuss further. permalink fedilink source parent [–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 8 months ago I hope they consider making a hard fork in light of this news. I use it and it's great. Perfect sweetspot of privacy, simplicity and "power tools". Many people might not want the default automatic cookie clearing on exit, but you can easily disable it or, better yet, whitelist domains you want to stay logged into. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Vintor@retrolemmy.com 37 points 8 months ago (3 children) LibreWolf is not a fork, though. It's a customised version of FF, so every shit they introduce has to be painstakingly removed by the LW team, provided that is even possible. (See Manifest V3 in Chrome.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 26 points 8 months ago (1 child) It's literally impossible to maintain a modern browser without extreme funding and competent engineers permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kraiden@piefed.social 7 points 8 months ago It's not "literally" impossible, but it's damn close. permalink fedilink source parent [–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 16 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child) LibreWolf is not a fork, though. It certainly is. They duplicate the code, creating a "fork" under their control, and make independent changes to the code. That is all that is needed to satisfy the "fork" definition. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vintor@retrolemmy.com 4 points 8 months ago (1 child) Interesting, because there is no mention of that anywhere on their website. Indeed, the workflow overview in their source repo clearly states that in order to build LibreWolf, you need the current Firefox source tree, and this is reflected in the Makefile, which fetches the Firefox source tarball associated with the same version. Nothing points to a repository they created at any prior point. Can you link to some official statement that supports this claim? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child) there is no mention of that anywhere on their website. A custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom. This project is a custom and independent version of Firefox, ... LibreWolf is a free and open-source fork of Firefox, ... This repository contains all the patches and theming that make up LibreWolf, as well as scripts and a Makefile to build LibreWolf. There also is the Settings repository, which contains the LibreWolf preferences. They take Firefox, make changes to it, then release it. As such, it is a fork. More specifically a "soft fork" since they continue to pull changes from upstream (Firefox). EDIT: Oh I see you're focused on the "duplication of the code" part. A bad phrasing on my part. It doesn't matter the specifics of how they pull in the source code, it is pulled in and used as the basis for librewolf's modifications. They could even pull it in on first launch and compile the latest version of Firefox with their modifications for subsequent launches and it would by all means be a fork, since they are shipping a modified version. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vintor@retrolemmy.com -4 points 8 months ago (1 child) Ok, thanks for clarifying. I was asking for a statement in support of your initial claim that turned out to be completely wrong: they didn't duplicate the code upon creation of the project, they didn't create a fork under their control, and they don't make independent changes to the code. What they are doing is customising the current code of Firefox at the time of compiling the LibreWolf project. If you really insist that that is a fork, then one of us doesn't understand what a fork is, and I'm not going to continue a fruitless argument. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago* they didn't create a fork under their control I'm sorry but this is simply incorrect (See 1,2,3), as I have previously stated. You could point to sources that agree with you though if you disagree. 1: https://itsfoss.com/librewolf/ 2: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/LibreWolf 3: https://lwn.net/Articles/1012453/ These are some examples that use "fork" in describing Librewolf. What they are doing is customising the current code of Firefox at the time of compiling the LibreWolf project. You have described the creation of a fork. ... I'm not going to continue a fruitless argument. I'm here if you wish to discuss further. permalink fedilink source parent [–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 8 months ago I hope they consider making a hard fork in light of this news. I use it and it's great. Perfect sweetspot of privacy, simplicity and "power tools". Many people might not want the default automatic cookie clearing on exit, but you can easily disable it or, better yet, whitelist domains you want to stay logged into. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 26 points 8 months ago (1 child) It's literally impossible to maintain a modern browser without extreme funding and competent engineers permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Kraiden@piefed.social 7 points 8 months ago It's not "literally" impossible, but it's damn close. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kraiden@piefed.social 7 points 8 months ago It's not "literally" impossible, but it's damn close. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 16 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child) LibreWolf is not a fork, though. It certainly is. They duplicate the code, creating a "fork" under their control, and make independent changes to the code. That is all that is needed to satisfy the "fork" definition. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vintor@retrolemmy.com 4 points 8 months ago (1 child) Interesting, because there is no mention of that anywhere on their website. Indeed, the workflow overview in their source repo clearly states that in order to build LibreWolf, you need the current Firefox source tree, and this is reflected in the Makefile, which fetches the Firefox source tarball associated with the same version. Nothing points to a repository they created at any prior point. Can you link to some official statement that supports this claim? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child) there is no mention of that anywhere on their website. A custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom. This project is a custom and independent version of Firefox, ... LibreWolf is a free and open-source fork of Firefox, ... This repository contains all the patches and theming that make up LibreWolf, as well as scripts and a Makefile to build LibreWolf. There also is the Settings repository, which contains the LibreWolf preferences. They take Firefox, make changes to it, then release it. As such, it is a fork. More specifically a "soft fork" since they continue to pull changes from upstream (Firefox). EDIT: Oh I see you're focused on the "duplication of the code" part. A bad phrasing on my part. It doesn't matter the specifics of how they pull in the source code, it is pulled in and used as the basis for librewolf's modifications. They could even pull it in on first launch and compile the latest version of Firefox with their modifications for subsequent launches and it would by all means be a fork, since they are shipping a modified version. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vintor@retrolemmy.com -4 points 8 months ago (1 child) Ok, thanks for clarifying. I was asking for a statement in support of your initial claim that turned out to be completely wrong: they didn't duplicate the code upon creation of the project, they didn't create a fork under their control, and they don't make independent changes to the code. What they are doing is customising the current code of Firefox at the time of compiling the LibreWolf project. If you really insist that that is a fork, then one of us doesn't understand what a fork is, and I'm not going to continue a fruitless argument. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago* they didn't create a fork under their control I'm sorry but this is simply incorrect (See 1,2,3), as I have previously stated. You could point to sources that agree with you though if you disagree. 1: https://itsfoss.com/librewolf/ 2: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/LibreWolf 3: https://lwn.net/Articles/1012453/ These are some examples that use "fork" in describing Librewolf. What they are doing is customising the current code of Firefox at the time of compiling the LibreWolf project. You have described the creation of a fork. ... I'm not going to continue a fruitless argument. I'm here if you wish to discuss further. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Vintor@retrolemmy.com 4 points 8 months ago (1 child) Interesting, because there is no mention of that anywhere on their website. Indeed, the workflow overview in their source repo clearly states that in order to build LibreWolf, you need the current Firefox source tree, and this is reflected in the Makefile, which fetches the Firefox source tarball associated with the same version. Nothing points to a repository they created at any prior point. Can you link to some official statement that supports this claim? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child) there is no mention of that anywhere on their website. A custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom. This project is a custom and independent version of Firefox, ... LibreWolf is a free and open-source fork of Firefox, ... This repository contains all the patches and theming that make up LibreWolf, as well as scripts and a Makefile to build LibreWolf. There also is the Settings repository, which contains the LibreWolf preferences. They take Firefox, make changes to it, then release it. As such, it is a fork. More specifically a "soft fork" since they continue to pull changes from upstream (Firefox). EDIT: Oh I see you're focused on the "duplication of the code" part. A bad phrasing on my part. It doesn't matter the specifics of how they pull in the source code, it is pulled in and used as the basis for librewolf's modifications. They could even pull it in on first launch and compile the latest version of Firefox with their modifications for subsequent launches and it would by all means be a fork, since they are shipping a modified version. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vintor@retrolemmy.com -4 points 8 months ago (1 child) Ok, thanks for clarifying. I was asking for a statement in support of your initial claim that turned out to be completely wrong: they didn't duplicate the code upon creation of the project, they didn't create a fork under their control, and they don't make independent changes to the code. What they are doing is customising the current code of Firefox at the time of compiling the LibreWolf project. If you really insist that that is a fork, then one of us doesn't understand what a fork is, and I'm not going to continue a fruitless argument. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago* they didn't create a fork under their control I'm sorry but this is simply incorrect (See 1,2,3), as I have previously stated. You could point to sources that agree with you though if you disagree. 1: https://itsfoss.com/librewolf/ 2: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/LibreWolf 3: https://lwn.net/Articles/1012453/ These are some examples that use "fork" in describing Librewolf. What they are doing is customising the current code of Firefox at the time of compiling the LibreWolf project. You have described the creation of a fork. ... I'm not going to continue a fruitless argument. I'm here if you wish to discuss further. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child) there is no mention of that anywhere on their website. A custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom. This project is a custom and independent version of Firefox, ... LibreWolf is a free and open-source fork of Firefox, ... This repository contains all the patches and theming that make up LibreWolf, as well as scripts and a Makefile to build LibreWolf. There also is the Settings repository, which contains the LibreWolf preferences. They take Firefox, make changes to it, then release it. As such, it is a fork. More specifically a "soft fork" since they continue to pull changes from upstream (Firefox). EDIT: Oh I see you're focused on the "duplication of the code" part. A bad phrasing on my part. It doesn't matter the specifics of how they pull in the source code, it is pulled in and used as the basis for librewolf's modifications. They could even pull it in on first launch and compile the latest version of Firefox with their modifications for subsequent launches and it would by all means be a fork, since they are shipping a modified version. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Vintor@retrolemmy.com -4 points 8 months ago (1 child) Ok, thanks for clarifying. I was asking for a statement in support of your initial claim that turned out to be completely wrong: they didn't duplicate the code upon creation of the project, they didn't create a fork under their control, and they don't make independent changes to the code. What they are doing is customising the current code of Firefox at the time of compiling the LibreWolf project. If you really insist that that is a fork, then one of us doesn't understand what a fork is, and I'm not going to continue a fruitless argument. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago* they didn't create a fork under their control I'm sorry but this is simply incorrect (See 1,2,3), as I have previously stated. You could point to sources that agree with you though if you disagree. 1: https://itsfoss.com/librewolf/ 2: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/LibreWolf 3: https://lwn.net/Articles/1012453/ These are some examples that use "fork" in describing Librewolf. What they are doing is customising the current code of Firefox at the time of compiling the LibreWolf project. You have described the creation of a fork. ... I'm not going to continue a fruitless argument. I'm here if you wish to discuss further. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Vintor@retrolemmy.com -4 points 8 months ago (1 child) Ok, thanks for clarifying. I was asking for a statement in support of your initial claim that turned out to be completely wrong: they didn't duplicate the code upon creation of the project, they didn't create a fork under their control, and they don't make independent changes to the code. What they are doing is customising the current code of Firefox at the time of compiling the LibreWolf project. If you really insist that that is a fork, then one of us doesn't understand what a fork is, and I'm not going to continue a fruitless argument. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago* they didn't create a fork under their control I'm sorry but this is simply incorrect (See 1,2,3), as I have previously stated. You could point to sources that agree with you though if you disagree. 1: https://itsfoss.com/librewolf/ 2: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/LibreWolf 3: https://lwn.net/Articles/1012453/ These are some examples that use "fork" in describing Librewolf. What they are doing is customising the current code of Firefox at the time of compiling the LibreWolf project. You have described the creation of a fork. ... I'm not going to continue a fruitless argument. I'm here if you wish to discuss further. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] unhrpetby@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago* they didn't create a fork under their control I'm sorry but this is simply incorrect (See 1,2,3), as I have previously stated. You could point to sources that agree with you though if you disagree. 1: https://itsfoss.com/librewolf/ 2: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/LibreWolf 3: https://lwn.net/Articles/1012453/ These are some examples that use "fork" in describing Librewolf. What they are doing is customising the current code of Firefox at the time of compiling the LibreWolf project. You have described the creation of a fork. ... I'm not going to continue a fruitless argument. I'm here if you wish to discuss further. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 8 months ago I hope they consider making a hard fork in light of this news. I use it and it's great. Perfect sweetspot of privacy, simplicity and "power tools". Many people might not want the default automatic cookie clearing on exit, but you can easily disable it or, better yet, whitelist domains you want to stay logged into. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zwiebel@feddit.org 13 points 8 months ago (1 child) Theres a bazillion forks permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ViatorOmnium@piefed.social 22 points 8 months ago (1 child) A bazillion understaffed forks ranging from unusable because they have more tinfoil hats than developers, and unusable because the single developer doesn't understand why remote debugging shouldn't be enabled by default. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2 points 8 months ago (1 child) I tried Florp or whatever and it just kept crashing. Went back to good old FF real fast. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwiebel@feddit.org 2 points 8 months ago LibreWolf has been really solid for me permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ViatorOmnium@piefed.social 22 points 8 months ago (1 child) A bazillion understaffed forks ranging from unusable because they have more tinfoil hats than developers, and unusable because the single developer doesn't understand why remote debugging shouldn't be enabled by default. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2 points 8 months ago (1 child) I tried Florp or whatever and it just kept crashing. Went back to good old FF real fast. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwiebel@feddit.org 2 points 8 months ago LibreWolf has been really solid for me permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2 points 8 months ago (1 child) I tried Florp or whatever and it just kept crashing. Went back to good old FF real fast. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zwiebel@feddit.org 2 points 8 months ago LibreWolf has been really solid for me permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zwiebel@feddit.org 2 points 8 months ago LibreWolf has been really solid for me permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jherazob@fedia.io 11 points 8 months ago (3 children) The issue is not the code, is all the infrastructure needed to develop something as heavy as a browser, which is what they have captive permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] BananaOnionJuice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 8 months ago Definitely we need a fork that's independent of Mozilla with a real non profit organisation behind, and these days we also need a permanent non-profit clause. permalink fedilink source parent [–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago permalink fedilink source parent [–] Mika@piefed.ca 3 points 8 months ago Can you elaborate on infrastructure part? I thought dev efforts are the key issue? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BananaOnionJuice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 8 months ago Definitely we need a fork that's independent of Mozilla with a real non profit organisation behind, and these days we also need a permanent non-profit clause. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mika@piefed.ca 3 points 8 months ago Can you elaborate on infrastructure part? I thought dev efforts are the key issue? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hayvan@piefed.world 8 points 8 months ago Firefox has many excellent forks already. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] real_squids@sopuli.xyz 4 points 8 months ago waterfox has been pretty good for me permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EpeeGnome@feddit.online 25 points 8 months ago (1 child) “AI should always be a choice—something people can easily turn off." “It will evolve into a modern AI browser and support a portfolio of new and trusted software additions.” How does he not get how contradictory these positions sound. Really a missed opportunity to brand themselves as the browser without AI bullshit and gain users who want to get away from that crap. Sure, they promise it'll have an off switch, but even if that's true, they're still wasting a lot of their very limited budget pursuing it. Really shows where their priorities are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 10 points 8 months ago Also, it's already not true. You can turn AI off, but not in the regular settings - you need to enter about:config and search for "browser.ml". Anything that's only available in about:config is not "easy" for the average user, and "browser.ml" isn't exactly an intuitive name, either. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 10 points 8 months ago Also, it's already not true. You can turn AI off, but not in the regular settings - you need to enter about:config and search for "browser.ml". Anything that's only available in about:config is not "easy" for the average user, and "browser.ml" isn't exactly an intuitive name, either. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Wildmimic@anarchist.nexus 3 points 8 months ago At least they seem commited to keep it a choice instead of the mandatory crap that pops up everywhere. Choice is fine, and maybe it helps to get Firefox back onto peoples computers so they keep their seat at the table when important decisions regarding the web are made. permalink fedilink source parent
