
Why do you use Firefox? - e15ctr0n
http://www.agmweb.ca/2017-02-05-why-do-use-firefox/
======
johnchristopher
\- not owned by a corp

\- I am used to the way the software feels (the way it hangs up or freezes...
but at work I use Google Chrome because of the proxy and being used to it in
that specific place it's firefox I can't stand... with the exception of the
company issued laptop on which I installed firefox (no proxy)). Psychosomatic
? Very much, yes.

\- free software

\- I like the logo and the name (I am a minotaur and phoenix early adopter and
moz before that)

\- I think they are good people and were there when I (as a user) needed them.
I know chrome or IE is there to suck out my soul and my data (yuck).

~~~
cpeterso
> I am a minotaur and phoenix early adopter and moz before that

Interesting, I had never heard of Mozilla Minotaur before. I can't find many
details online, other than it was a new mail client before Phoenix was renamed
Firefox. Was Minotaur an early version of Thunderbird?

~~~
johnchristopher
Yes, Minotaur was the name of the project to make a stand alone mail client
out of the Mozilla suite.

[http://www.internetnews.com/dev-
news/article.php/2190891/Moz...](http://www.internetnews.com/dev-
news/article.php/2190891/Mozillas+Phoenix+Minotaur+Get+New+Names.htm)

[https://tech.slashdot.org/story/03/03/26/055232/new-
mozilla-...](https://tech.slashdot.org/story/03/03/26/055232/new-mozilla-
based-mail-client-minotaur)

------
mybrid
No processes. No hangouts. No index service started without asking. Chrome on
Windows is a pig. Back when I was using it then nonstop then 25% of CPU usage
was pegged to Chrome. I gave up trying to manage Chrome and switched to
Firefox.

Recently Firefox said they were moving away from threads to processes. I think
that's a mistake. Killing Chrome was a pain at times because when it does hang
all the child processes had to be killed independently. It was possible to
restart Chrome with orphaned processes. What a mess.

Also, I like the implementation of profiles in Firefox much better. I have a
different profile for work, home and various side jobs. Very nice.

Chrome developers are crap developers and they hide behind processes because
they don't have the chops to do threads. I hate to see Firefox move in that
direction. Maybe Firefox needs to since Firefox is adopting Chrome extensions.
But I refuse to use Chrome because it has crappy performance and usability.
Hopefully Firefox doesn't move in the same direction.

~~~
sf_rob
>No processes

From my understanding, the initial rollout of multi-process has a single
render process (in addition to the main browser process). There are ongoing
experiments to determine the optimal number of processes, so it's likely to
increase soon. In the future you can force this to 1 by using the
"dom.ipc.processCount" pref if you don't want your process manager to resemble
Chrome.

~~~
yellowapple
I feel like that defeats the point of multiprocess; on Chrome at least, the
one-process-per-tab model is intended to isolate tabs from one another without
having to duplicate a bunch of work that the OS does already.

~~~
sf_rob
You're correct that it defeats one of the points of multiprocess, but you
still get parallel performance gains trivially that will scale well as more
cores are added as well as isolation of crashes where it doesn't kill your
whole session.

------
vetinari
> vast majority of users could switch to Chrome and get all the same
> extensions with almost identical functionality [4]

On desktop, maybe. On mobile, definitely not. Chrome for Android does not
support extensions at all.

Firefox, on the other hand, does. If you want uBlock, Ghostery, whatever on
your mobile browser, you don't have other choice than Firefox. And if you like
your bookmarks synced between mobile and desktop, that makes Chrome on desktop
no-go option too.

~~~
spinchange
>And if you like your bookmarks synced between mobile and desktop, that makes
Chrome on desktop no-go option too.

The extensions/ad blocker argument is 100% legit, but unless I misunderstand
you, Chrome has had history and bookmark sync across signed-in platforms
(mobile/desktop) for a very long time!

~~~
parthdesai
I think he means that since you can't use chrome on mobile because of lack of
extensions, you can't use it on desktop unless you want out of sync bookmarks.

~~~
vetinari
Exactly! Thank you.

------
khedoros1
\- I've never felt coerced into creating an account to sign into or felt like
I was tying myself to a system built around the goal of selling me ads.

\- I can disable EME and choose not to install Flash, and that applies to most
other features that I don't want to use.

\- I started using it around Firebird _because_ of its nature as a lightweight
browser that provided extensions to let me pick and choose my functionality. I
think of Firefox as a piece of software that says "yes" to the way that I want
to do things more than it says "no".

------
TheCapn
Generally speaking, I use Firefox because I've always used Firefox. At no
point have they ever done something that's made me upset enough with my
browsing experience to jump platforms entirely.

It's familiar, it has the extensions I need and it hasn't buggered up in any
significant way that I uninstalled it from frustration.

~~~
epoch1970
It's a similar situation for me. I've used Firefox for a long time, and it
currently gives me the least-worst experience of the major browsers. That's
probably the only reason I still use it.

I wouldn't say I like using Firefox, though. In fact, I think the user
experience has gotten a lot worse for me over time. On more than one occasion
I've wanted to move away from it.

Really the only thing that keeps me using Firefox is that none of the other
major browsers offer a significantly more compelling experience at this time.
I find all of the major browsers to be mediocre at best.

If a better non-Firefox browser did come along, I'd likely switch away from
Firefox as soon as I found out about the alternative. I have no real ties to
Firefox itself.

------
iSnow
Goodwill, as I like Mozilla much more than Google. I kind of dislike the
Chrome UI, but that's a minor point.

A lot of FF is hare-brained, though. E10S solved the unresponsive UI for me,
but for the life of me, I don't know how to enable it on my touchscreen Dell.
There is no indicator in preferences that tells me whether it is on or off and
no button to simply force it.

Javascript-heavy websites tend to burn through the CPU of my Macbook Air, but
I don't know how to throttle background tabs. Or at least profile which tab
gobbles my cycles. About:performance is not that helpful. Ideally, there would
be some indicator if a background tab eats more than x% CPU.

~~~
duckmuck
I spoke with a Firefox dev, I was told that due to accessibility settings,
multithreading with touchscreens wouldn't come until the current Beta build is
released to stable. Technically it should already work on the beta build but
it doesn't seem to work for me.

~~~
cpeterso
AFAIK, accessibility support, including touchscreens, should be enabled in
Firefox Beta 52 now:

[https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis#Schedule](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis#Schedule)

In the meantime, you can force Firefox to enable multiprocess, even if you
have a touchscreen by creating a new about:config pref
"browser.tabs.remote.force-enable" = true.

------
threepipeproblm
I think the argument misses the point. Most of the people who are using
Firefox without extensions are doing so because someone who likes the freedom
of the browser -- including the ability to run all current extensions --
suggested it.

>> In fact it's insulting to all those contributors who work so hard on
Firefox to say that extensions are the only thing keeping them from switching
to Chrome.

The ability to run extensions is just the most popular manifestation of a
browser that has always valued user freedom. So my question is, why are they
stopping with that mentality? Why blame the victims of such a poor decision?
Taking away my option to use extensions seems like the insulting choice to me.

~~~
kibwen
_> why are they stopping with that mentality?_

Because, in practice, officially giving unfettered access to Firefox's
internals to third-party developers makes changing anything in the Firefox
codebase a potential quagmire. It's taken five or six years for electrolysis
to begin seeing the light of day, and that's because such a drastic
rearchitecture of the browser ended up breaking basically every popular addon
in the wild. In the meantime, the inability to evolve the browser has hampered
its ability to compete with Chrome, whose deliberately-specified addons API
leaves it with no such baggage. Not to mention that the greater scope of
Firefox addons has more severe implications for user security, which means
that Mozilla has to spend resources to further vet every addon on AMO, which
leads to even more complaints at the sluggishness of the apparent bureaucracy.

Addons were absolutely a great way to differentiate Firefox from IE back in
the day, but in the context of modern web browsing having such a free-for-all
addons interface is a lose-lose proposition. It's absolutely a shame, but the
market of browser users has been inexorably making this decision for years
now.

~~~
threepipeproblm
That was well said. But at the end of the day doesn't it remain an argument
that users shouldn't be able to run the extensions that have been freely
available, aka "we know better than you." Breaking Firefox to turn it into the
browser they wished they had made _will_ be disastrous, I'm afraid. It seems
to me there are any number of "middle paths" (or dual paths) that Mozilla
could take, but they don't want to do anything to jeopardize their
consolidated user base.

~~~
kibwen
_> But at the end of the day doesn't it remain an argument that users
shouldn't be able to run the extensions that have been freely available_

I'm unsure what you're arguing here. Their goal is not to abandon addons for
the sake of abandoning addons. On the contrary, Mozilla has been sweating
blood for years to strike a balance between 1) making the vast architectural
changes that will keep them competitive with other browsers and 2) keeping as
few addons as possible from breaking with each release. And rarely do they
ever get kudos for their efforts in keeping up this balancing act--instead
they just get panned both for not being as fast as Chrome and then breaking
some subset of addons anyway. So we've at last reached a breaking point:
between electrolysis and project quantum, Mozilla is at last forced to choose
between being a slow browser with powerful addons or being a fast browser with
limited addons. I'm sure there are plenty of folks on HN who will wish they
had taken the former path rather than the latter, but the problem is that
Mozilla's mission of influencing web standards depends on having sufficient
market share to afford a seat at the standards table, and I happen to agree
with Mozilla that there are more people out there who want a fast and secure
browser than who want an extensible browser (and I say that as someone who's
been using Firefox with addons since version 1). (And for all that the point
might still be moot: maybe Chrome with its marketing momentum and Safari and
Edge with their platform advantage really are unassailable regardless of which
path is taken here.)

In any case, as unhelpful as it may sound, the idea that users won't be able
to "run the extensions that have been freely available" is false. Old versions
of Firefox will always exist, and every component is thoroughly open source,
so if a community (or company) sees a demand for a fork of Firefox with legacy
addons support then the opportunity is ripe.

~~~
threepipeproblm
>> that will keep them competitive with other browsers

I understand that is the hope. In reality it does represent a step away from
the approach that has made Firefox popular. I would say it's a guess, at best,
that Firefox is suffering because it is not moving towards a Chrome-like model
fast enough... versus that Firefox suffering because of the move towards a
Chrome-like model.

As far as "striking a balance", no that would be something like allowing users
who want to keep older extension models do so by agreeing to a dialog box, and
then offering to turn such extensions off in case performance problems
actually arise.

~~~
kibwen
I still think you're underestimating the difficulty here. This would
effectively involve keeping a fork of Firefox in-tree, and trying futilely to
keep those two implementations bug-for-bug compatible.

------
campuscodi
Because it's not owned by Google. That's why!

------
malnourish
For me it's a combination of extensions and philosophy.

Philosophy is pretty clear, but extensions that I find necessary are:

Tree Style Tabs (Chrome does not have a good replacement, I've tried them all)
DownThemAll LastPass with better functionality Mouse gestures (this is HUGE
for me, I want to be able to lazily browse with my mouse when I please,
open/close and switch tabs with just a right-click and a flick)

~~~
severine
The Tree Style Tabs author is quite active[1]. I knew, he had a really great,
and funny, site[2] for XUL lovers out there.

I was about to make a snarky comment about how filthy rich should he be, based
on how TST is always praised everywhere, so I went to look for a donation
button to link to my planned snarky comment.

I didn't find any donations button, so I dug a bit more and found this[3]: 'I
am an incumbent IT engineer, but apart from my company's work, I'm serializing
articles in the manga format entitled "Cis Tube Girls" in the monthly magazine
on Linux related technology called Nikkei Linux.'

Seriously, check this comic: [http://system-admin-
girl.com/about/](http://system-admin-girl.com/about/)

I love Firefox, Tree Style Tabs, Google Translate, and the Internetcetera. I
love you Piro, thanks!!!

[1] [https://github.com/piroor](https://github.com/piroor)

[2]
[http://piro.sakura.ne.jp/xul/xul.html.en](http://piro.sakura.ne.jp/xul/xul.html.en)

[3]
[https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...](https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fpiro.sakura.ne.jp%2Flatest%2F&edit-
text=&act=url)

------
Macha
1\. Addons. Google has censored YouTube Center because it allows people to
download youtube videos. Pentadactyl is also important and not really possible
to such a depth in Chrome (though I will admit I haven't had it installed in a
while due to constant breakage). Tab groups is another that is unlikely to be
available in WebExtensions, at least for a while. Call it insulting if you
will, but it is the reality.

2\. Open Source, both in long-term direction and not just code. Recent moves
have dampened this though (Hello, Pocket, blocking addons from outside AMO,
unsigned extension blocking)

3\. I don't trust Google. Once upon a time, this was not the case.

------
coldpie
It's not owned by an advertising company, and it's the only full-featured
browser I'm aware of that has great ad blocking on Android.

~~~
mattbee
100% the same - Chrome might be the faster browser, but it doesn't matter when
it's hobbled with ads. I imagine that's even more significant when you have an
older phone.

------
ifdefdebug
> only about 38% of Firefox users have an extension

What? You can't describe 38% of your user base with the word "only". This
should read "a whole 38% of Firefox users ..."

I use Firefox because I trust it better than chrome, but I need those
extensions I am using.

~~~
Jordrok
Yep. If you make a change that upsets nearly 40% of your userbase, can you
really act surprised when you hear people complain about it? Even if you go
with the comparatively tiny 5% estimate of users who are 'unable' to switch,
that's still a number that's in the millions.

This is the sort of thing that Google does all the time - optimize for the 90%
at the expense of the remaining 10%. I think a lot of the more extreme
backlash is because of that vocal (but not insignificant!) minority which is
disappointed by the perception that Mozilla is going down the same route as
Google (and all the other tech behemoths before them).

------
cyphax
I genuinely just like it better than Chrome or Edge. I think Chrome is an
excellent browser, and for about a year I used Chrome instead of Firefox (due
to Firefox really not working anymore, having to restart the thing several
times a day -- I also tried Opera, but it didn't fare any better) but I never
liked using it as much as I liked Firefox. So at some point I tried Firefox
again, and it has stuck so far. It's probably still not the most stable
browser, or the fastest per se, but I generally like Mozilla's design
decisions a bit better than Google's, and, well, it's super subjective but
between Google and Mozilla, I have a bit more sympathy towards the latter
(without hating the former or anything). I also use Firefox on my Android
phone. I like that it can synchronize my profile, and it's also quite usable.
Frankly I'm reasonably happy about the state of browsers (there have been
times where, in my role as web developer, I wasn't quite so happy ;)) overall:
seems like everybody's made at least a decent browser. I'm glad I can pick
whichever browser I like best, not whichever one sucks the least. :P Also,
I've been using it since 0.4, the first browser that could replace IE6 well
for me, at that time (compatibility was still an issue -- am I old?)

------
Silhouette
In approximately this order:

1\. Trust and privacy issues (limited phoning home, separate search/address
bars, etc. plus generally promoting a more open Web)

2\. Stability and reliability (in the sense that things continue to work over
time)

3\. Gets updates (but doesn't force them unexpectedly)

4\. Large and flexible add-ons ecosystem (and I'm already familiar with it)

5\. Momentum/habit

In practice, 1-3 rule out Chrome as my everyday browser choice, while 1 and 3
rule out IE, so today Firefox basically wins by default on my Windows 7 PCs.

If Mozilla rearranges or breaks too many things and if it's then no longer
possible to have a secure version of Firefox without getting those other
changes, most of the above points will become deal-breakers for Firefox as
well. In that event, I'll mostly likely switch to something like Pale Moon for
my own use and just keep the big names around for testing.

------
nulagrithom
Chrome feels invasive to me.

It's always wanting me to sign in to my Google accounts and sync everything.
Why would I want to sign in to a browser?

It wants to run extensions as background processes (wtf?). Why would I want my
browser to run "apps"?

It's like it wants to be an OS wrapped in an OS. Why wouldn't I just use my
OS?

At this point, it just feels like bloat to me. I want a browser. That's all. I
guess I use Firefox for what it _doesn 't_ try to do.

~~~
sp332
I use Chrome apps for long-running things that are actually like apps. Gmail
and Hangouts for example. It's nice to have a separate icon for them too. But
I still do all my regular browsing in Firefox.

------
perfectstorm
Firefox's address bar is much more intelligent than Chrome. The moment i type
a keyword it shows me the sites i visited from the past that has this keyword.

Firefox also supports flick gesture from my Wacom tablet on my Windows machine
to scroll up/down webpages.

~~~
orcdork
I thought I was the only one - chrome's address bar is unusable for me.

~~~
bhauer
Chrome's address bar is almost _obsessed_ with considering everything you type
into the bar being a Google search.

------
KamBha
Personally, I disliked the fact that Chrome would spawn so many processes.
This has become less of an issue (as each process is no longer as heavy), but
was a big deal previously as other people at work would constantly complain
about their computers being slow.

Call me old school, but I actually like the fact that the URL bar and the
search bar are two separate things and that I can actually have a menu bar. I
find the way that Chrome handles its navigation a little annoying at time and
I don't see a big deal about losing a few hundred pixels to FF's chrome.

I actually like the way that Mozilla communicates information about Firefox
(less automated).

Aside from that, unabashed fanboyism.

------
marssaxman
I use Firefox because it works fine and doesn't appear to be trying to exploit
me.

I don't know what "WebExtensions" are or how they differ from regular
extensions, but if Firefox breaks all the adblockers and scriptblockers that I
depend on to make the web tolerable, I'm going to have to downgrade that
"works fine" rating.

~~~
sp332
WebExtensions are going to look a lot like Chrome's extensions, to the point
that many addons will be compatible between the two. So, speaking loosely,
anything Chrome addons can do now will be supported.

------
oxide
I've switched back and forth over the years.

I'll never switch again.

I prefer noscript to scriptsafe, I refuse to browse without a whitelister. I
like the fact that the mobile version supports the extensions I see as vital.

Chrome has one thing going for it, market share. which is why I keep Chromium
installed for when I can't log into citibank to pay a bill, etc.

Also, when I was a teenager without my own computer, my mother used to think
Firefox was a virus. She'd tell me "uninstall that mozzarella foxfire virus
IMMEDIATELY!"

that always makes me laugh.

I guess Mozzarella Foxfire hasn't burnt enough of their goodwill to scare me
off for good the way Google has.

------
JohnTHaller
Firefox is fully open source, does what I want it to. Syncs where I want it to
if I choose to sync it. Allows me to run extensions on my Android device
(Chrome doesn't). Is more customizable. And it works better portably (not
installed into ProgramFiles running from a USB device or synced cloud folder).

Chrome on Windows locks all your saved passwords, extensions, and extension
settings to your current OS. If you upgrade to a new PC and copy your APPDATA
over, Chrome will unceremoniously delete all your passwords and extension data
with no warning.

Chrome on Windows also allows any website to download infected DLLs to the
local machine's download directory without prompting. If you then download a
trusted digitally signed installer and run it from that download directory,
it'll use those infected DLLs unless it specifically hard codes their
locations (newer versions of NSIS are safe from this, older versions of NSIS -
which are much more common - are vulnerable).

IE and Edge... no thanks.

------
Avernar
The main reason I use Firefox over Chrome is that the Chrome devs are very
against users having a choice on how the browser operates. They also tend to
over-engineer solutions to problems.

Here's an example. There has been a bug report asking that Chrome ask to
overwrite files instead of silently adding a number to the filename. Instead
of making Chrome operate like every other browser and every other program out
there they instead came up with a scheme to track all file downloads in the
download history and if etags and dates match to "snap" to the location where
the file already exists on the user's drive.

Countless of users have said they don't want that. All they want is to be
asked to overwrite. Nope, not going to happen. So give us an option in the
settings. Nope. Apparently too many options is a bad thing to have.

That's why I don't use Chrome.

------
zlynx
From habit, and to do my part keeping the Web from becoming a single-vendor
standard.

I also use Edge on my Surface tablet, for the same reasons.

------
clock_tower
NoScript and uBlock Origin, both running at once, for an almost completely ad-
free Web.

~~~
aesthetics1
Is this not available under Chrome for some reason? Or was it not available
when you made your switch (or original browser choice)?

~~~
clock_tower
NoScript is mentioned in the article as not being available on Chrome, and
I've heard that Chrome ad-blockers still show ads. Google being an ad company,
I wouldn't expect them to allow particularly thorough ad-blocking.

~~~
jordsta
I'm not one to defend Chrome, but the functionality of uBlock Origin you get
on Firefox is the exact same as what you get on Chrome. Same filters available
and everything.

If you still see an ad in Chrome with uBlock Origin installed, it's likely
that the filters haven't updated to block that particular ad yet. Moreover,
you'd likely see the same ad when browsing with the equivalent Firefox.

~~~
clock_tower
That's true enough; but uBlock Origin is my second line of defense -- the main
one is NoScript. It requires quite a bit of savvy to navigate modern websites
that way, but if you can work it out it's pretty powerful.

------
microDude
I don't worry about the browser collecting usage information to sell to
information brokers. I have a lose trust in the Mozilla foundation to do the
right thing.

------
teovall
Tree Style Tabs is the only reason left for me at this point.

~~~
blfr
We may be the 1% or some other fringe but this is also my reason.

Except for the UI, Chrome is generally ahead. It's not insulting to Firefox
contributors. Competing with Google is hard.

~~~
gnicholas
I came here to make sure that Tree Style Tabs was represented, and I see that
it's already been mentioned several times. Why wouldn't Chrome build this in?
It seems like they could grab a decent number of power users that way — and
presumably make some of their other users happy along the way.

I will note, however, that because of TST on Firefox, I keep way more tabs
open there than in Chrome (20x, I'd guess). Based on the few times when I've
had more than 15 or 20 tabs open on Chrome, I could imagine that it would bog
down most machines. Perhaps they're not building it in because it would
encourage people to browse with many tabs open, which would suck up lots of
memory?

~~~
seba_dos1
I can imagine that's the case. Chrome with just moderate number of tabs open
(under 100) already becomes unusable, both from UI and performance
perspective, while Firefox many times worked fine for me with thousands.

------
replete
Because Firefox Add-ons allow more browser-enhancement than Chrome.

An example - TileTabs. Not only can you show any number of tabs in a grid like
layout one one screen (so helpful for work), but it can compress them all into
just one tab.

Chrome's extensions are allowed an icon in one of two places.

------
TheChaplain
Technically I feel Firefox is good enough, it supports the browsing I do.

From a non-technical PoV, I use it because I feel that Mozilla genuinely care
about their users, their privacy and making a better WWW experience.

Chrome on the other hand gives the impression having one single purpose,
harvest as much user-data they possibly can while protecting their business
interests. Although I understand it, I don't agree with it and don't think
it'll be good for an open and free internet in the long run.

------
yellowapple
For me, it really is the extensions. Specifically, it's Tree Style Tabs. Very
few browsers seem to offer even just having tabs along the side of the window
instead of at the top, let alone the actual tab tree. XUL also enables some
neat Firefox-based browsers like Conkeror to exist.

Hopefully something can be worked out so that similar functionality can be
implemented in Firefox even after the death of XUL. Else, hopefully there can
be some Firefox equivalent to CEF so that I or someone else can build a
Firefox-based browser with an alternative UI.

Else, I'll likely start browser hopping again - something I hoped to avoid by
switching from Chrome to Firefox in the first place. I'll certainly still use
Firefox on Android, since it's a fantastic little browser that has a somewhat-
usable tab interface that doesn't become completely worthless beyond the
10-tab mark (I've got 52 open on this phone right now). For desktop, though,
my hopes are on NetSurf to become reasonably usable (the recent Duktape
integration is a nice start).

Basically: I just want a browser that's FOSS and that doesn't shove all my
tabs into the top of the window end-to-end like a goddamn maniac. That's
really all I ask.

------
gogoengie
Tree Style Tabs

~~~
CroCroCro
[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sidewise-tree-
styl...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sidewise-tree-style-
tabs/biiammgklaefagjclmnlialkmaemifgo) or
[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tabs-
outliner/eggk...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tabs-
outliner/eggkanocgddhmamlbiijnphhppkpkmkl)

~~~
malnourish
Unfortunately those replacements just don't cut it. They're too separate. Tree
Style Tabs is irreplaceable for me.

------
oftenwrong
A bunch of people have already mentioned a few extensions, like Tree Style
Tabs, that I consider important, but there is another big thing keeping me on
Firefox: inertia. I have been a user since it was "Phoenix". If I wanted, I
could change to another browser, but for now I would rather not have to go
through the trouble. I have everything as I like it, more or less, so I will
continue using FireFox ESR until it is impractical.

------
sandov
I use it because I don't want google to snoop on my browsing habits, and
Firefox is the less shitty FOSS browser to my knowledge.

------
tmaly
I don't feel like I am being data mined when I use Firefox.

------
wvenable
> vast majority of users could switch to Chrome and get all the same
> extensions with almost identical functionality

I'm surprised this isn't a more _worrying_ point!

> In fact it's insulting to all those contributors who work so hard on Firefox
> to say that extensions are the only thing keeping them from switching to
> Chrome.

But that's your most _distinguishing_ feature. Ok, you have the stats to show
that most people don't even notice. I think that's more insulting than us
diehards who are actually using your product to its fullest. I love Firefox
for the power it gives (extension) developers. Now you're telling me is that
you're putting in a lot of work towards taking something away that I've used
for over a decade. Don't expect those diehards to be happy about it.

------
heavymark
While I long upgrade from Firefox, I imagine most don't change because people
hate change. I remember back when I switched I noticed all the little tiny
differences, and while there were different and in most cases better ways of
doing that in Chrome, I was use to my current way and any change slowed my
productivity down. In the long run, I knew Chrome would be a better solution
when I finally dove two feet in. But for many they are happy with what they
have and while Chrome would offer a superior experience, the change wouldn't
be worth it for many. And the rest I imagine fall into the category of I hate
company x, so don't want to use it and then end up sticking with company that
they believe on the surface is more inline with their values.

~~~
RodericDay
what do you mean "on the surface"?

------
wvenable
Tab Mix Plus for Multirow tabs

I guess I'm in the 5%.

I have been responsible for a lot more installs than just my own -- lots of
those people with little to no extensions. But in the last year or so I've
switched to giving people Chrome (it just makes more sense these days) and
when I'm no longer using Firefox I will definitely have no reason to advocate
for it.

But I understand, I'm on the losing side. The way that I've used the web for
the last decade is going to be obsolete and I will have to suffer with
whatever I can scrounge together to continue to work effectively. Whatever
browser I can make that happen with will be the one that I use. If a lot more
people had learned how awesome some of these add-on provided features are,
they would have continued to be supported.

------
DeepYogurt
I use firefox because despite all the missteps that mozilla takes; I still
like the company. I fell like mozilla have their heart in the right place and
that they try (sometimes against all odds) to do the right thing. I want to
support mozilla and that's why I use firefox.

------
jitl
\- TreeStyleTabs \- Vimperator

The Chrome alternatives for both of these do not compare well. Cvim, vimium,
etc lack a lot of depth like .vimperatorrc (a config I can track in Git!).

The TreeStyleTabs alternatives in Chrome require a separate sidecar window in
Chrome! This mikes window management a nightmare. Sigh.

~~~
oftenwrong
cVim does have a cvimrc file. You have to use the `configpath` and
`localconfig` settings.

------
Rekaiden
It's not Chrome.

------
laktak
I don't understand Chrome's split personality (Chromium). While you could
theoretically get a version that is disconnected from Google, does one
actually exist?

There is also this issue [1] that's been open since 2011 that won't let me
implement an extension similar to something like "Self destructing cookies".
Looks like it doesn't align with Googles interests.

[1]
[https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=78093](https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=78093)

------
sp332
Chrome is all about delivering web content to the user, as the web page
developer designed it. Firefox moves the balance of power closer to the user.
And not just with extensions, but by building in Readability mode and letting
users pick fonts, sizes, colors etc. Even though Firefox is going to move away
from their old addon model, they are constantly pushing to standardize more
functionality in the new model. They really want users to experience the web
on their own terms, even when that means putting a lot of extra work into the
core framework of the browser.

------
crispinb
I'm trying it out for a while, having mostly used Chrome in recent years.
Perhaps oddly it's climate change that has prompted this. Where I live each
summer is hotter than the last, and Chrome's persistent high cpu use this year
has been making my macbook worryingly hot. Safari is more efficient but lacks
many useful extensions.

Firefox is pleasing so far. The laptop is far quieter and cooler. I've found
all the extensions I need. I like not being bound to an ad company's product.
The one thing I do miss is good support for keyboard shortcuts.

~~~
cpeterso
Which keyboard shortcuts do you miss from Chrome?

~~~
crispinb
Two which spring to mind:

(1) Email link. It has a menu item (File -> Email link) but no shortcut.
Perhaps worse, the standard OSX means of adding a shortcut to a menu item (via
System Prefs -> Keyboard) doesn't work with firefox. An assigned shortcut will
very briefly flash the menu name, but doesn't then select the item.

(2) Chrome has a general dialogue for assinging keyboard shortcuts to
extensions. As firefox doesn't, the user is at the mercy of extension
developers, many of whom seem to be mousers.

~~~
cpeterso
Unfortunately, Firefox doesn't currently support OS X's custom keyboard
shortcuts for menus other than the Firefox application menu.

I found a Firefox extension to customize keyboard shortcuts (ported from a
Chrome extension). Unfortunately, the extension doesn't work in Firefox 51 or
later (due to some unfortunate version checking logic in the extension
itself). I left a message on the extension page, so perhaps the developer will
update their extension.

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/shortkeys-
cus...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/shortkeys-custom-
shortcuts/)

~~~
crispinb
Thanks. I'll keep an eye on that extension.

Do you happen to know if there's a bug logged for the custom keyboard shortcut
lacuna? And/or for there not being a preset shortcut for emailing links? (Yes
I'm being lazy here and will look myself if you don't know).

The above two were top-of-mind examples, but, particularly with extensions,
the lack of keyboard shortcuts does add quite a bit of friction to FF use for
me. Perhaps not enough to send me back to Chrome (though today it cropped up
often enough that I was tempted).

Another example is I haven't found a satisfactory way to add a link to
Pinboard from the keyboard. There are a bunch of Pinboard extensions, but the
one I like best so far ([https://github.com/Cito/Pinboard-
Pin](https://github.com/Cito/Pinboard-Pin)) doesn't support shortcuts. In
Chrome I would have been able to add my own.

~~~
cpeterso
> Do you happen to know if there's a bug logged for the custom keyboard
> shortcut lacuna? And/or for there not being a preset shortcut for emailing
> links?

This is Firefox Bug 429824 - User-defined (custom, System Preferences)
shortcuts don't work

[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=429824](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=429824)

I found this extension that lets you add or custom keyboard shortcuts for many
Firefox menu items. It mentions the Email Link menu item, but I didn't dig
much deeper.

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/my-
keyboard-n...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/my-keyboard-
navigator/)

Unfortunately, I don't know of a way to assign shortcuts to extensions.

~~~
crispinb
Thanks. I'll keep an eye out on 429824. Actually I'll need to as it turns out
after a few hours more use that emailing links is something I use too much in
the course of work to be willing to reach for the mouse (and the 'My Keyboard
Navigator' doesn't work for this purpose on the mac). I wouldn't have known
this without a few days experimentation, which in itself says something
interesting about UX & (my) self-knowledge.

For now, it'll have to be back to Chrome, with Safari as a back up for hot
days.

~~~
cpeterso
I use the official Pinboard extension, which overrides Firefox's bookmark
keyboard shortcut (Cmd+D) to use Pinboard:

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/pinboard-
exte...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/pinboard-extension/)

------
yegle
Pentadactyl beats most of Chrome's vim-like keybinding extensions.

~~~
oftenwrong
I use Pentadactyl, but cvim for Chrome, a relative newcomer, is also very
good.

------
thewavelength
Does someone has also issues with heavy-loaded JavaScript pages, e. g. using
React or Angular? It's a pain to use/scroll on those sites. The most awful
website I know using it is Facebook. It is so damn laggy, even with uBlock and
Disconnect enabled. When I start having more than one Facebook tab open
(together with WhatsApp Web) I sometimes grow the will to switch to Chrome. I
could resist yet because I don't like Google's approach for restrictive
extension web store.

------
synicalx
I used to use Firefox way back in the day before Chrome was a thing, then once
Chrome existed and run pretty fast I moved to that for many years. Now I'm
back to Firefox almost entirely due to the absurd 'Web Bluetooth' BS from
Chrome's Update 56.

It's noticeably more sluggish than Chrome even with little or no addons and
tabs, but I'm far more ready to put up with that after the last few Chrome
updates.

~~~
quicksave2k
You might want to read
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13577670](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13577670)
then ;)

------
dageshi
Honestly, I just couldn't bear Chrome dev tools UI, thankfully firefox dev
tools have a firebug ui option which I find just about perfect.

------
omash
I could switch to Chrome but I have Firefox set up already and know how it
works.

I sincerely hate the Firefox developers for breaking addons constantly and now
making it so I can't even edit addons without a painful signing process.

Addons in Firefox seemed more powerful in the past but I'm confident
WebExtensions will remove this advantage.

~~~
kibwen
_> I sincerely hate the Firefox developers for breaking addons constantly_

Exhibit A for why it's a good idea to allow addons only through a specified
addons API (i.e. how Chrome does it): your users won't hate you merely for
daring to make normal changes to your codebase.

------
pasbesoin
A browser that performs what I want rather than what some second or third
party wants. A true _user_ agent -- not some commercial agent increasingly
modified to shovel corporate-ware and corporate spying at me.

Extensions currently being a central piece of this.

Kill my extensions, and I've a lot less reason to stay with you.

------
rwallace
I would prefer to use Chrome because of the process per tab model, but the
second time a Chrome update started the browser intermittently crashing, I ran
out of patience and switched to Firefox as my primary browser.

------
adiabatty
I use it as my "IRC" browser because it supports whatever audio APIs Discord
uses for chat. Slack goes on the same browser window because it's similar to
Discord.

I use Safari as my main browser, though.

------
bobajeff
I use it because it's the only browser that supports my old computer.

------
butz
In addition to things already mentioned: * Doesn't put all extension icons in
menu or toolbar, without option to hide them. * Empty page on new tab.

------
elpocko
Two reasons: There's a number of extensions I want to keep using. Those are
not available on Chrome. And I fear for my privacy when using Chrome.

------
PeterWhittaker
Might be worthwhile having a survey asking what browser HN users use most of
the time (I use two, but one dominates quite a lot; neither are FF).

------
jherrick
Need something other than Chrome and IE that has decent plugin support.

------
IE6
Because I can't have a browser consume all of my memory.

------
zackboe
about:config

I enjoy having the ability to tweak some tiny little settings that help my
workflow here and there.

------
lolc
Freedom.

