I've been very happy with Waterfox so far. Made with the Gecko Engine but not maintained by Mozilla.

like spam filtering out anything with the word "Allah", etc

That's valid tbh. Nice Muslims say Ilah. Mean monotheists say Allah.

forks cant survive without firefox unfortunately

unless they start curating things like censoring specific words or searches.

After reading this, in particular the "The Facts" section, my understanding is: he got pulled into making a political statement about gender and he didn't want to get involved with that.

Yet again, that "crowd" didn't like Ladybird's refusal to play, therefore that "crowd" does what they're known best doing: cry high and loud on the internet playing the victim.

In a sense, that "crowd" shoved their political agenda down his throat, and that's the only thing I personally find reprehensible here.

Hot take. Under semantic versioning everything after vista has been in essence a new version of vista.

Going from NT 5.x to 6.x was a major jump.

The reason why Vista had no/terrible drivers was because they went from an insecure one driver bug crashed the whole system model to more secure isolated drivers that don’t crash the whole system model. Developers had to learn how to write new drivers and none of the XP drivers worked.

They went from a single user OS with a multi user skin on top, to a full role based access control user system.

They went from global admin/non-admin permissions to scoped UAC permissions for apps.

Remember on Vista when apps constantly had that “asking for permissions” popup? That was the apps not using the 6.x UAC APIs.

Given the underlying architectural situation everything since Vista has been vista with polish added (or removed depending on how you look at it)

Things will go beyond vista when a new major release with new mandatory APIs shows up.

mozilla sucks

Companies should be allowed to make a profit, you need that to cover bad years, invest in the future of the company, etc. A company without profit (unless it is a non-profit) will not survive.

It's just a versions list. And I'm mostly joking. Rather that the "feel" of using Windows between 2000 and XP didn't seem to change much. (I prefer 2000)

The fact that it's aiming to be stable doesn't mean it is. It's still a work in progress unlike other browsers.

Ok but XP was literally 2000 with a prettier default theme

Why the downvotes??

Qutebrowser is my main and Lynx is my "feed" browser. Qutebrowser you don't need anything else. it just works and you can script the thing to your hearts content.

For a long time I was using Floorp, and while I like floorp and the dev team behind it, I just stopped using it as my main. Sure it's a fork of firefox and they're at the whims of mozilla which lately has been clearly evident with the slow updates to floorp.

Qutebrowser just works. The dev for it is a nice dude who is easily accessible for help. the community for it is also very helpful. the integration with things like greasemonkey make scripting and customizing anything so painfully easy. I mean there's a great script for it right now that completely 100% circumvents youtube ads and it's been working for months straight without any need to update. It also meshes extremely well with my Bitwarden.

I'll never use a different browser again.

Refusal to make a "political" statement is very much political when the politics in question is about acknowledging non-men exist. There is no politically neutral choice when there are two options who are both political.

I personally think it's not about Mozilla. It's about the Web.

You need to see the bigger picture always.

The Web as an application for global system of hypertext documents served from different computers is fine.

The Web wasn't intended as a platform for platforms for global applications.

It's used as one, because that allows a certain kind of people to gather power. Networked personal computers made the civil society too powerful. Needed a solution.

Why the Web and not just "Facebook native application" and "Google native application"? Well, it's hard to maintain a hypertext document system made application platform. It limits competition. It also allows Facebook and Google popularity to affect web browser and web techologies popularity. If these don't work in a browser, that browser is doomed.

While the verticals and monopolies themselves allow thieves and murderers in governments to control the Internet.

So - there weren't that many websites, if you think about it, requiring any particular web technology when it came into existence. Those mostly started specifically for Google, Facebook etc services and/or policies. Say, HTML5 to phase out Netscape plugin API, which was presented as phasing out Flash (everybody hated Flash).

Mozilla followed those policies and appeared neutral, yes.

But in general the moment using Dillo or Netsurf or Links became plainly, completely not an option for the Web, it was decided. A world standard that has only a handful of compliant realizations is not a standard. It's an oligopoly.

So, getting back to hypertext - Flash was hated by some because it didn't allow to turn the whole webpage into an application, but that wasn't its purpose. JS was a mistake, I think. Any interpreted content should have been embedded in its clear place separate from the rest of the page with its own plugin, similar to Flash applets. But - one can accept that in year 1996 they didn't think of such consequences.

And remote big services not being standardized were also a mistake. I wrote a bit on that from time to time here, gets tiring to repeat - a lot of what the server side of many applications does is just routing to another client, computation and storage. One can devise a standard for remote services. So that local applications would be different, but would use the same pooled infrastructure, found and announced via trackers similar to torrents. With global identifiers of entities to allow interoperability, so that "post #12435324646dasgtshdryh" would be the same text on any of such storage services (having it) and at any point in time.

That, of course, is a bit late. In our current world things like Briar and other mesh are probably a better direction. One can have what I described over them too, but it will also require management of bandwidth and bottlenecks and stuff not reachable directly.

he supported the bill to ban gay marriage and that’s terrible,

but I’ve also heard that he left his politics at the door and treated everyone with respect, including the LGBT people at Mozilla

How on earth can you reconcile these two statements? "I respect you so much I'll pass a law to make you illegal"?

Currently, it's pretty shit. It starts up in fullscreen with a non managed window, well, fuck that noise.

I just moved back to ff in November, because of ubo. I have to move again? Where to?

This is the exact block I came to quote.

The rest of the article is good too, though.

TL;DR;

A few days later, someone pointed out an issue in SerenityOS where a new contributor offered to update the documentation to include gender-neutral language instead of always assuming the person building the project was a man. Kling rejected it with the statement: “This project is not an appropriate arena to advertise your personal politics.”

…Kling and the Ladybird project doubled down on rejecting active inclusion in the name of being “apolitical.” Others tried to explain that rejecting inclusivity is inherently a political decision.

If you’ve watched enough of these things play out, it’s usually the doubling down that causes a lasting split, more than the original disagreement.

So not some kind of JK Rowling transphobia or even stock republiQan misogyny as much as a fairly tone-deaf executive position on documentation that became a thing.

Making documentation gender-neutral is not radical or ‘political’ other than it’s trying to reflect the reality that more than just men use and create code. It seems like Kling thought his project was under threat of takeover by some radical pansexual furry anarcho-collective (not that there’s anything wrong with that) and said something stupid like “documentation isn’t a place for political debate” which, is sort of true and also not relevant to the change requested.

As the article states, the real issue is the doubling down. That’s not good.