• @1984
    link
    English
    2859 months ago

    I actually don’t agree, and the reason is - non tech people. You and me can install plugins but ordinary people don’t do that. So the default experience must be good, offering improvements to the experience over Google Chrome.

    Otherwise all privacy features could also be plugins. Imagine if that was true. Firefox would have no identity and you would have to install plugins and make it your own.

    So some features should be built in. Maybe the ability to get pop-ups about false reviews will actually make users go “wow that is so useful”.

    • Neshura
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2109 months ago

      Compromise: Develop it as a Plugin and then install it by default. That way people who don’t want the feature can easily remove it completely. That approach would likely also reduce the number of Firefox forks whose sole purpose is to remove the new features some consider bloat.

      • @Lepsea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        20
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Or make it so that people have a choice to add some of the extension features when installing the browser. Debloating is not fun

          • @Aceticon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            9
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Well, the whole point of debloating is to end up with little in the way of stuff instead of lots of stuff ;)

            • @Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              89 months ago

              I do get that and used to do a lot of it myself, but usually the results are just fairly minor. That’s what I meant by it seeming more like a hobby than something hugely beneficial

              • @Aceticon@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                39 months ago

                I suspected so, but the way you worded it was just asking (neigh, demanding) to be “misunderstood” for humouristic purposes :)

                  • @Aceticon@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    49 months ago

                    Not a criticism.

                    As far as I can tell (not a native speaker myself) it was properly worded and I only acted as if I had misunderstood it for humouristic purposes.

                    I’ve done it for actual expressions used by native speakers by simulating language ignorance and interpreting them in a literal way, for fun, just like I did here.

                    Sorry if it sounded like a criticism - I meant to just take the piss in a friendly way.

        • Neshura
          link
          fedilink
          English
          49 months ago

          True, also wouldn’t be too much work. Just some additional dialogues on first start up asking you which plugins you’d like installed

      • @tweeks@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        109 months ago

        Good solution, perhaps two simple options at browser install: Default / Custom. That way you don’t have to uninstall all the stuff at the end.

          • @Gestrid@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            39 months ago

            Probably handle it similarly to how Chrome handles an extension asking for new permissions. It disables the add-on and gives the user a small non-intrusive notification on the options menu. Opening the notification notified the user about the change in permissions and asks them if they want to re-enable the add-on or remove it from Chrome.

    • Engywuck
      link
      fedilink
      English
      7
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Now, let’s talk about adblockers… Oh, wait, Google would get upset if FF had an inbuilt adblocker and could stop giving us those $weet money…

      • @Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        139 months ago

        If Google stopped sponsoring, Mozilla would go down and Google would get slammed with anti-monopoly lawsuits from the EU.

        So Mozilla can do whatever they want and Google won’t stop sending them money. Since that is a lot more profitable in the long run.

        • Engywuck
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -49 months ago

          Mozilla can do whatever they want and Google won’t stop sending them money.

          So… What are they waiting for? Are they going to rely on gorhill for ever?

            • @jdaxe@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              05 months ago

              Sure, as long as we still have options to disable their blocker and use a 3rd party one if we choose. It’s astounding how many users don’t bother to install an adblocker and it would be a massive improvement for those users who don’t know better.

              There’s been more than one occasion that I’ve used a family member’s PC and they have Firefox installed without a single extension, they didn’t even know that extensions existed.

      • Free Palestine 🇵🇸
        link
        fedilink
        English
        29 months ago

        Use LibreWolf. It’s Firefox with pre-installed uBlock Origin and pre-configured privacy settings. It also doesn’t have any of the Firefox bloat like Pocket

        • Engywuck
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -9
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          No way I’m giving market share to gecko and, thus, to Mozilla. I just point how how hypocrite they are. I’ll keep satisfyingly using Brave.