I really enjoy seeing new projects, especially now with Mozilla's updated TOS, but this project's page really bothers me!
Why include a feature comparison table with browsers like Chrome and Edge, but leave out Firefox? Your project is built on Firefox, and you even borrowed half of its name. Attribution matters. If Mozilla were to shut down Firefox and all its users left, would Waterfox even survive?
You're absolutely right but attribution is still the core issue here. I clicked on the page because it seemed like a promising alternative to Firefox, and I expected the focus to be on how it differs from Firefox. Instead, I was surprised to see Firefox completely ignored, especially when the project is clearly built on its foundation and even borrows part of its name. It feels like a missed opportunity to acknowledge the very platform that made Waterfox possible in the first place. Transparency and credit matter, especially in open-source projects.
Yeah, reading this page with no mention of Firefox feels a bit weird - I was asking myself the whole time what the relationship is. All I needed was something saying "a privacy-preserving fork of Firefox" or similar to put that to bed so I could concentrate on the rest of the content.
Is this Firefox rebranded with anything privacy breaking removed?
Personally that is what I want. A minimal set of diffs on top of Firefox that turns off anything obnoxious Mozilla might (or might not) add, but is close enough to the original codebase that it can be updated with security fixes right away
It sounds like LibreWolf and Waterfox both fall into this category. Difficult to distinguish much between the two.
There's a 2yo reddit thread [0] in which the Waterfox founder claims that Waterfox balances privacy with usability, and has the advantage of an auto-update feature. This could be outdated as I just installed LibreWolf and there definitely was an auto-update option in the installation dialog.
There's also an article on OnionEngine [1] which compares the two. According to this, Waterfox has support for legacy add-ons, but unlike LibreWolf does not necessarily disable trackers by default. Hard to see how up to date the article is.
By the sounds of it, if you have a strong privacy prefence and don't mind compromising usability for the sake of privacy, Libre Wolf may be the better bet.
Librewolf portable [0] is available via the PortableApps.com launcher, which is great for keeping it from scattering files everywhere or for carrying it on a USB drive for Win32/Wine users. Waterfox Classic used to be available, but that stopped a long time ago, and the new Waterfox was never available, to my knowledge. Additionally, the portable version of Librewolf, while lagging slightly as most portable editions do, is updated fairly frequently.
This is why I ended up choosing Librewolf - I prefer to have more control over where files are stored on the Windows platform. I also took the extra step of creating the TempForPortableApps [1] folder as well.
The modern version of Waterfox does not support legacy addons.
There's a Waterfox Classic, which does, but even that is mostly obsolete these days (add-ons may work, but many websites don't). And I don't think it's getting regular security updates.
I understand that people need alternatives that work now but please consider contributing your developer expertise and/or donating to Ladybird[0] / Servo[1]. We need to get away from our current engine duopoly of Chromium/Gecko (yes I know webkit exists)
How do we actually know these browser forks don't contain malware of their own? If you can hide something in a tiny package like xz-utils... and a browser would seem to be a very juicy target.
I mean sure, there can be audits, 3rd party assurances, long histories without incidents, you can even check the code yourself.
But do you trust any of those completely to know what they're doing, not be compromised, to have actually done a thorough and total deep dive, and not missed anything (for example, something hidden in a tiny package like xz-utils) in the vast expanse of a codebase that is a modern browser? You shouldn't. In a small (<1000 LoC) codebase maybe, but a large one? It's not feasible. therefore...
> How do we actually know these browser forks don't contain malware of their own
You don't know, because you can't know, especially if you expand that beyond just malware, but also include dark patterns, back doors, and privacy disrespecting gems. So it becomes a matter of faith. Who do you trust more? The ones advocating for your privacy, or the ones removing such commitments from their website in light of a new ToS that has many people rightfully in an uproar?
These days, for projects of sufficient size/use, on a long enough timeframe, a project either dies or becomes enshittified. The key is to find that stage of a project/products life where you maximize usefulness and minimize enshittification. That's not to slander Waterfox, or any other project, but simply to assert that ultimately, there is rarely if ever a perfect solution that can be fully trusted.
Source: Trust me bro, I'm on the internet. No one ever lies on the internet.
Possible, but Waterfox has been out there long enough that I'd think someone would have picked up on it by now. Especially with it being marketed as a more secure Firefox.
EDIT: I'm not the one that downvoted the op. Not sure why it's getting heat, it's a valid question.
> but Waterfox has been out there long enough that I'd think someone would have picked up on it by now.
lol that doesn't mean anything. it's good that it's open source, but time unfortunately is not an indicator since it doesn't necessarily imply anything about the amount of those checking or the quality of said checks.
This is my first comment while using Waterfox. Installing and adding ublock was nearly identical to the countless Firefox installs I've done. Painless.
So long, Mozilla, it's been a nice couple decades.
Ok, so perhaps the fact that an addon is needed to achieve real privacy should be pointed out somewhere on the web site amongst all the discussion about privacy.
If they're just copying Mozilla's half hearted approach to privacy, it should be pointed out that browser updates have been known to disable add-ons so this becomes an ongoing issue.
It takes no time/effort to add real privacy to LibreWolf and keep it active because it is built-in. The same applies to other browsers which claim to offer real privacy by default.
Readit News
Why include a feature comparison table with browsers like Chrome and Edge, but leave out Firefox? Your project is built on Firefox, and you even borrowed half of its name. Attribution matters. If Mozilla were to shut down Firefox and all its users left, would Waterfox even survive?
If it's the former attribution still matters, but if it's the latter lack of attribution is outright dishonest.
> Waterfox is an impressive example of what a better version of Firefox can look like: leaner, faster, and without the desire to collect your data.
Deleted Comment
So I steer well clear.
The irony(?) being we used to be listed on the Mozilla website :) https://web.archive.org/web/20121229210505/http://www.mozill...
I learned today that Waterfox cut ties with System1 in July of 2023, so I'm glad to have an alternative to switch to. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36590056https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36606210
Personally that is what I want. A minimal set of diffs on top of Firefox that turns off anything obnoxious Mozilla might (or might not) add, but is close enough to the original codebase that it can be updated with security fixes right away
There's a 2yo reddit thread [0] in which the Waterfox founder claims that Waterfox balances privacy with usability, and has the advantage of an auto-update feature. This could be outdated as I just installed LibreWolf and there definitely was an auto-update option in the installation dialog.
There's also an article on OnionEngine [1] which compares the two. According to this, Waterfox has support for legacy add-ons, but unlike LibreWolf does not necessarily disable trackers by default. Hard to see how up to date the article is.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/waterfox/comments/14seevh/comment/j...
[1] https://onionengine.io/blog/waterfox-vs-librewolf/
By the sounds of it, if you have a strong privacy prefence and don't mind compromising usability for the sake of privacy, Libre Wolf may be the better bet.
This is why I ended up choosing Librewolf - I prefer to have more control over where files are stored on the Windows platform. I also took the extra step of creating the TempForPortableApps [1] folder as well.
[0] https://portableapps.com/apps/internet/librewolf-portable
[1] https://portableapps.com/support/platform#advanced
There's a Waterfox Classic, which does, but even that is mostly obsolete these days (add-ons may work, but many websites don't). And I don't think it's getting regular security updates.
It seems https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js is a comprehensive set of settings for that
[0]: https://ladybird.org
[1]: https://servo.org
I mean sure, there can be audits, 3rd party assurances, long histories without incidents, you can even check the code yourself.
But do you trust any of those completely to know what they're doing, not be compromised, to have actually done a thorough and total deep dive, and not missed anything (for example, something hidden in a tiny package like xz-utils) in the vast expanse of a codebase that is a modern browser? You shouldn't. In a small (<1000 LoC) codebase maybe, but a large one? It's not feasible. therefore...
> How do we actually know these browser forks don't contain malware of their own
You don't know, because you can't know, especially if you expand that beyond just malware, but also include dark patterns, back doors, and privacy disrespecting gems. So it becomes a matter of faith. Who do you trust more? The ones advocating for your privacy, or the ones removing such commitments from their website in light of a new ToS that has many people rightfully in an uproar?
These days, for projects of sufficient size/use, on a long enough timeframe, a project either dies or becomes enshittified. The key is to find that stage of a project/products life where you maximize usefulness and minimize enshittification. That's not to slander Waterfox, or any other project, but simply to assert that ultimately, there is rarely if ever a perfect solution that can be fully trusted.
Source: Trust me bro, I'm on the internet. No one ever lies on the internet.
EDIT: I'm not the one that downvoted the op. Not sure why it's getting heat, it's a valid question.
lol that doesn't mean anything. it's good that it's open source, but time unfortunately is not an indicator since it doesn't necessarily imply anything about the amount of those checking or the quality of said checks.
2021, 101 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28815747
This is my first comment while using Waterfox. Installing and adding ublock was nearly identical to the countless Firefox installs I've done. Painless.
So long, Mozilla, it's been a nice couple decades.
x = number, algorithm, and/or moderator manual usage. Annoying for when you want to see discussion about a topic.
The browser many not track you but the ad networks do. Without ad blocking, your browsing really isn't all that private.
If they're just copying Mozilla's half hearted approach to privacy, it should be pointed out that browser updates have been known to disable add-ons so this becomes an ongoing issue.
It takes no time/effort to add real privacy to LibreWolf and keep it active because it is built-in. The same applies to other browsers which claim to offer real privacy by default.