The bulk of the user-hostile bits are in this list[1] of what's removed from Firefox for the Waterfox builds, mostly telemetry and tracking, Pocket, ad-supported nonsense, and DRM (for those who prefer a DRM-free first class browsing experience).
Waterfox also allows users to continue using "classic" extensions that Mozilla completely abandoned, and the developer has committed to staying with Firefox ESR until he feels Quantum has reached a point where he can switch to that codebase (i.e. maintain older extensions while allowing new features).
Thanks for the explanation. The telemetry/tracking stuff is what I'm mainly concerned by (and was previously aware of) but I balked at the idea that they'd introduced something more in Quantum that I hadn't yet heard of.
Ironically I'd be far more interested in switching to Waterfox if it switched to Quantum. Not only is the new extension's API far nicer than the previous one for new developers starting new extensions (yes porting old extensions is a pain, and sometimes impossible due to lack of feature-parity) but it's much more secure, which should be a priority for something focused on protecting a user's privacy. Furthermore, I wasn't aware until reading your linked list, but it appears Waterfox allows installing unsigned extensions by default: is this true? The unsigned config value is already very easy to set in Firefox, but having it set by default is just asking for users to shoot themselves in the foot in terms of leaking private data to extensions.
The porting effort from Mozilla's side can hardly be described as "developer-hostile" either; they've continuously added APIs for specific 3rd-party extensions on-request, and had a 2+ year compatibility roll out with plenty of shouty warning.
> Furthermore, I wasn't aware until reading your linked list, but it appears Waterfox allows installing unsigned extensions by default: is this true?
Yep and that's one of the reasons I say Waterfox is 99% there. I actually set that back to the Firefox default.
My biggest gripe with Firefox is its tendency towards making privacy hostile telemetry opt-out instead of opt-in, while still claiming they are the most privacy focused browser. They should either switch to opt-in, or remove language from their promotional materials and blog claiming to be privacy focused.
It is not really user hostile - but it is developer hostile IMO. The person you replied to did not claim the Firefox Quantum stuff was user hostile either.
I'm just curious about what they're referring to (user- or developer-hostile). What is it that you find developer-hostile?
They mentioned user-hostile in their first sentence and then went on to say the Waterfox devs were having difficulty with Quantum, so I'm really just asking about either.
I am generally just curious, as a user of Firefox. I currently trust it more than Chrome but I'm concerned if there's a trend of disimprovement.
I've commented on HN before about my concerns with some Mozilla initiatives (mainly Test Flight, but others too), but I was under the impression that Firefox core work was of a better standard.
Hadn't heard about extra user-hostile stuff in this release? What things are the Waterfox guys having trouble with?