@TheZeldaZone@mastodon.social on Mastodon: "Hello, We're Firefox, The Only Browser That Hasn't Hit Itself In The Dick With A Hammer. For years now, folks use us because of our un-hammered dick. Now, you may be wondering why today we've brought this hammer and pulled out our dick. Well I'm glad you asked--"

top 93 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 39 points 10 months ago (1 child)

They’re not perfect, but having a real alternative engine matters more than people realize.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 57 points 10 months ago (17 children)
  • [–] 42 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Long ago, the Four Fox Nations lived together in harmony. Then everything changed when the Firefox Nation attacked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    A hundred years passed and my brother and I discovered the new developer, a script kiddy named Aang. And although his python skills are great, he has a lot to learn before he's ready to save anyone. But I believe Aang can save the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    there is a mobile waterfox too now

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Its a fork and they can choose to include the changes they want from upstream. They've come out and said they're not adding this AI bullshit. Librewolf has done the same.

    So yes, base is firefox, but it's not actually Firefox, in the same way edge uses chrome as its base (not exactly, but similar)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    in the same way edge uses chrome as its base

    It is much different than this. Edge is built on the Chromium engine, but that's it. Waterfox is Firefox, as it's shipped by Mozilla, only with some theme changes and flags disabled.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 77 points 10 months ago (36 children)

    Well, I still haven't seen any AI in my Firefox and I'm planing on using it until I will.

  • source
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 10 months ago (28 children)

    Hold your click for at least one second on any link and it will show a preview of the link and suggest you to use AI to describe it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 110 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    I genuinely thought you said "hold your dick for at least one second"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 74 points 10 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 23 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Settings > scroll down to "General" > look at the options under "Enable link previews". You can turn the previews off altogether or just turn off the AI part

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

    This is a defence only until it isn't - although thank you for the tip.

    That's how Windows has been going for years - adding more and more crap and make it all default enabled, and people are like "Oh just turn it off bro."

    Then every update adds more unwanted options that get increasingly difficult to turn off, or randomly turn themselves back on, and before you know it we've reached a point where every new install soon needs an entire checklist to go through to make things actually usable again.

    That is not how life should be. I want something that respects me by default, and if it wants me to try a feature I might find even slightly objectional, I should have to explicitly opt-in and say YES.

    Firefox is setting a precedent by moving in this direction, and they've showed their hand. There's only more where this came from, and I won't tolerate it, even if I can turn it off.

    When the Firefox terms and conditions drama happened some months back, that was the push I needed to switch to Librewolf. It's a Firefox fork with privacy-respecting settings out of the gate, no sponsored content, no ads, uBlock pre-installed, and absolutely zero AI. If you're a Firefox user, I recommend you try it too.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    Yeah, you can also opt out of your planet being demolished to build the intergalactic highway, the form is in the basement.
    Incidentally, most of the new llm bullshits are on by default and can't be turn off in the settings, you need to go to about:config and search for .ml to do so (not to be confused with .ml instance of lemmy which you also can't easily opt out of). Obviously this settings aren't synchronised between instances by "synchronise all settings" thingy which they need my personal info for, why would it, so you need to do it every time. Also also they sometimes revert back with major updates, because obviously they are.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (14 children)

    So it's entirely optional, you only encounter it by interacting with the browser in an atypical way, and the thing it does is a thing that AI is actually pretty decent at (summarizing text)? Sounds like they couldn't stop themselves from joining the dick hammering bandwagon, but decided not to hit it too hard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    This isn't my wheelhouse so take it with a grain of salt, but an argument against link summarizers that I've heard is that it takes views away from websites that could be generating revenue for themselves. Instead an LLM scraped their content and fed a summary directly to the user.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    It's more of a concern with google summaries that show up at the top of search results because it completely removes the need to click on any of the websites it pulls from. Ideally a link summary just lets you figure out which link you need without clicking on and looking at each one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Do people making that argument also find ad blockers even ten percent as horrible as this? They both ultimately have the same effect, which is your web browser not maximizing someone else's profits by denying them a revenue opportunity.

    I'd be curious if the link summarizer in Firefox runs a model locally or calls some remote API. Most current machines ought to be able to run an appropriate LLM model for that task.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    you only encounter it by interacting with the browser in an atypical way

    Leaving my pointer on a random place that happens to be a link is atypical? I don't think it is. I had this pop up to me a couple of days ago and I didn't even understand what could've triggered it, I was wondering if I clicked something or pressed a key unconsciously.

    and the thing it does is a thing that AI is actually pretty decent at (summarizing text)

    Pretty decent? Just passable, if the text is about some run-of-the-mill topic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Doesn't do that for me. I have to hold left click on a link for over a second to trigger it.

    And yeah, pretty decent. It can produce a basically summary of a fair amount of text pretty quickly and generally accurately. It's not an expert wordsmith, it won't give a deep and thoughtful analysis of the poem you pointed it at or anything, but that's not the use case. The use case is "give me the key bullet points of this article so I can decide if I should give it more attention.", and it does that job pretty well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    generally accurately

    This is absolutely, demonstrably, documentedly not true. It is accurate sometimes, and sometimes it shows you absolute bullshit. When will it be accurate? Who knows. So you can use it only when you don't care about the truth, in which case why even bother, just imagine the article said what you wanted it to say and be done with it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    Depends on model tuning. Basically, you can tune a model to hallucinate less, or to write more human-like, but not really both at the same time, at least not for a model you could expect most users to run locally. For this sort of application (summarizing text), you'd tune heavily against hallucination, because ideally your bullet points are going to mostly be made up of direct paraphrase of article text, with a very limited need for fluid writing or anything even vaguely creative.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    Basically, you can tune a model to hallucinate less

    You can tune it to hallucinate more, you can't tune it to not hallucinate at all, and that's what matters. You need it to be "not at all" if you want it to be useful, otherwise you can never be sure that it's not lying, and you can't check for lies other than reading the article, which defies the whole purpose of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Doesn’t do that for me. I have to hold left click on a link for over a second to trigger it.

    I misunderstood the previous comments, actually, yeah, it's not triggered the way I assumed.

    The use case is “give me the key bullet points of this article so I can decide if I should give it more attention.”, and it does that job pretty well.

    I'll put aside all the other complaints I have on my mind, because we've both probably gone through similar discussions, I don't want to get bogged down in yet another, and just say that I honestly can't imagine this being such a useful or time-saving thing in the first place. Like, did it use to be a frequent problem to you to start reading an article, realise you're not interested, and give up on it?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago

    entirely optional

    No, it's on by default, it has access to everything you're browsing and doing fuck knows what with it, and you need to know that it is doing it and unless you've read it somewhere you don't know that it's there.

    thing that AI is actually pretty decent at (summarizing text)

    That's so not true it's not even funny.

    I mean yeah, it could be worse, everything could be worse. Still, not good, not good at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

    There are a bunch of flags in about:config you can check as well, if you wanna be extra sure they're turned off. Just search for browser.ml. There are more but this was all I could capture in one screenshot. Bold means I had to change it, which means it was on by default. That said I'm using CachyOS repos, not the direct Arch ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

    You only need to set browser.ml.enable to false.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    Why use 1 hammer with 50 hammers will do the job even better!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 10 months ago (22 children)
  • [–] 80 points 10 months ago (19 children)
  • [–] 28 points 10 months ago (16 children)

    I really hope Firefox gets forked, and ends up like OpenOffice

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 10 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 34 points 10 months ago (8 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.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 10 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 10 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 10 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 10 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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 10 months ago

    “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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 10 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 112 points 10 months ago

    free bottom surgery :3

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    I could never not use zen or the similar browsers

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Looks nice but how's the ad blocking performance? I'm currently using Librewolf with ublock origin and a pi-hole and I basically never see ads anymore

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    you'll have about the same experience with zen+ublock, all told. obviously there's more advanced privacy features you'll lose, but your advertising experience will be about the same, nearly if not identical

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 10 months ago

    I hope enough people remain on this AI infested ghost ship that it can keep providing a base for librewolf.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 10 months ago* (3 children)

    LibreWolf looks good these days.

    As there seems to have been recent confusion about this, just a quick "official" toot to then pin: we haven't and won't support "generative AI" related stuff in LibreWolf. If you see some features like that (like Perplexity search recently, or the link preview feature now) it is solely because it "slipped through". As soon as we become aware of something like this / it gets reported to us, we will remove/disable it ASAP.

    https://chaos.social/@librewolf/115716906957137196

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Can it sync my password and history from Mozilla’s servers? I’d switch in a heartbeat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    Yep. Is basically a firefox stripped from junk. Just remember is very stick on privacy, if something is not visible or some pics don't upload, you just have to enable the site permission from the icon in the navigation bar.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    "Firefox is evolving into an agentic browser, connecting devices, cloud, and AI to unlock intelligent productivity and secure work anywhere. Join us at #MozillaIgnite to see how frontier firms are transforming with Firefox and what’s next for the platform. We can’t wait to show you!"

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›