"I don't care to live in strategically lost situatios like this, so I think the conversation should be about Firefox extensions."
Why would the conversation not be about editing the Firefox source code to add or remove "features" to meet one's personal needs.
What is the point of "open source" if, to use the term from the submission title, the software is effectively un-"hackable".
There is no small amount of "attack surface", and many unneeded "features", that could be removed from Firefox to someone's benefit, maybe it's only one user,^0 but but that will effectively never happen. Why. It is open source so anyone should be able to audit the code and change it to their liking.
0. To be clear, I am not commenting about "most users" or the majority of users or whatever. I am referring to the small class of users who are explicitly dissatisfied.
In 1995, there were numerous non-commercial browsers. Netscape, the source of Mozilla, was one of the few attempting to commercialise.
There is nothing wrong with having "all-in-one" programs. As long as other "not-all-in-one" programs also exist as alternatives.
Arguably, the aim of the "all-in-one" program may be to obviate the existence of other programs, namely smaller, simpler ones.
Those pushing gigantic web browsers might assume and argue, e.g., that it is inconvenient to have different programs for different tasks. This could be true. For some users. However it is also true that small programs can be made to work with each other. UNIX is the example. Over thirty years of continual growth. The companies behind the giant browsers probably could not survive without it. There is choice.
Large "all-in-one" programs and small ones like UNIX utilities can co-exist. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Personally, I prefer not to use a giant browser to make HTTP requests on the open internet. It is overkill and there is a profound lack of user control. (Hence "solutions" like "sandboxing", and an ever-incresing number of Band-Aids that serve only to add more needless complexity. The companies releasing these giant "all-in-one" programs are funded by advertising. Enough said.) For me the "modern" browser is more useful as an image viewer and media player.
It is possible to "browse" the web without advertising, tracking or other annoyances, I do it every day,^1 but not with one of these giant advertising-supported "all-in-one" programs like the "modern" web browser. It is a losing battle to try. No amount of "extensions" can change the balance of power over those giant programs.
Despite that these "browsers" are "open source", dissatisfied users who know how to program are not editing the source code to remove the bad bits. Instead they helplessly complain in forums like HN.
1. I am not a typical user. (Though I might be in 1995.) I prefer text over graphics. I like to read without distraction. Because text is easy for the user to manipulate, it seems to have a defense against advertising that is not available with graphics. For example, if text ads were inserted into response bodies, I can easily filter them out.
> Why would the conversation not be about editing the Firefox source code to add or remove "features" to meet one's personal needs.
Because extensions are way easier to write, less likely to break because they use mostly stable public interfaces, and don't require an amazingly long compile.
I'd very much love to be able to clearly remove features I don't want and use, including a lot of the things about profiles, then use a tool to remove all unused codepaths to make a fast, usable and hopefully easier to understand product. But who has the time to dig into the behemoths of firefox and chrome today? It's just too much code to easily grasp.
Unlike you I don't have a dislike of graphics. I do however see value in small simple software. The Web is a runtime so very complex that it takes huge organizations to create.
Theoretically, you could sacrifice full compatibility by implementing only the APIs used for Google, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, Amazon etc. and have something much simpler. But that would still be a hard task because you are making a big compatibility hack for certain websites. Like the wine compatibility layer only for websites. Except that the websites could stop working at anytime and then you'll have to pile on more interfaces to keep up with them.
When evaluating software utility we often times forget that websites are software and don't attempt cost them in. Using them is a recurring cost in terms of complexity. They are definitely not free or even low cost.
"I do however see value in small simple software."
Years ago on HN, I had commenters attack statements I made about the value of small, simple software. They literally challenged the terms "small" and "simple". After that I started prefacing these words with "relatively".
"When evaluating software utility..."
Another time, an HN commenter attacked a statement I made about how I evaluate software for myself. He suggested something to the effect that end users were incapable of evaluating software.
I think the presumption of what users want is a kind of classism. Users are humans and as humans we have a hierarchy of needs that can lead to certain tradeoffs. Doesn't mean only the techies appreciate things like privacy and having agency over software. Just because corporations don't give us a choice doesn't mean "the market has decided". So you aren't an outlier you are just aware and maybe more interested in the problem than someone who isn't a programmer.
The impedence to compiling IMHO defeats the point of open source. I use a text-only browser I can compile in less than a minute. I use an HTTP generator that compiles in two seconds. The so-called "modern" browser is a PITA. A nuisance. An unfortunate necessity for accomplishing certain tasks, e.g., commercial transactions such as banking or shopping. But most of the time I am using the web I am not doing those tasks.
Why would the conversation not be about editing the Firefox source code to add or remove "features" to meet one's personal needs.
What is the point of "open source" if, to use the term from the submission title, the software is effectively un-"hackable".
There is no small amount of "attack surface", and many unneeded "features", that could be removed from Firefox to someone's benefit, maybe it's only one user,^0 but but that will effectively never happen. Why. It is open source so anyone should be able to audit the code and change it to their liking.
0. To be clear, I am not commenting about "most users" or the majority of users or whatever. I am referring to the small class of users who are explicitly dissatisfied.
In 1995, there were numerous non-commercial browsers. Netscape, the source of Mozilla, was one of the few attempting to commercialise.
https://www.w3.org/Clients.html
There is nothing wrong with having "all-in-one" programs. As long as other "not-all-in-one" programs also exist as alternatives.
Arguably, the aim of the "all-in-one" program may be to obviate the existence of other programs, namely smaller, simpler ones.
Those pushing gigantic web browsers might assume and argue, e.g., that it is inconvenient to have different programs for different tasks. This could be true. For some users. However it is also true that small programs can be made to work with each other. UNIX is the example. Over thirty years of continual growth. The companies behind the giant browsers probably could not survive without it. There is choice.
Large "all-in-one" programs and small ones like UNIX utilities can co-exist. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Personally, I prefer not to use a giant browser to make HTTP requests on the open internet. It is overkill and there is a profound lack of user control. (Hence "solutions" like "sandboxing", and an ever-incresing number of Band-Aids that serve only to add more needless complexity. The companies releasing these giant "all-in-one" programs are funded by advertising. Enough said.) For me the "modern" browser is more useful as an image viewer and media player.
It is possible to "browse" the web without advertising, tracking or other annoyances, I do it every day,^1 but not with one of these giant advertising-supported "all-in-one" programs like the "modern" web browser. It is a losing battle to try. No amount of "extensions" can change the balance of power over those giant programs.
Despite that these "browsers" are "open source", dissatisfied users who know how to program are not editing the source code to remove the bad bits. Instead they helplessly complain in forums like HN.
1. I am not a typical user. (Though I might be in 1995.) I prefer text over graphics. I like to read without distraction. Because text is easy for the user to manipulate, it seems to have a defense against advertising that is not available with graphics. For example, if text ads were inserted into response bodies, I can easily filter them out.