Terminal Velocity
Well-Known Member
I have no complaints from FF, I'm just curious, why it is preinstalled in so many distributions? There are other open source browsers like Brave for example, why we don't see Brave preinstalled?
Why so many Linux distributions support FireFox?
- Thread starter Terminal Velocity
- Start date
Firefox has been around from almost the Beginning of Linux, and it was open source. Something not every browser is.
And it works pretty well with linux. This page may be of help in understanding it.
And it works pretty well with linux. This page may be of help in understanding it.
A Look Back at the History of Firefox
Mozilla Firefox is one of the leading open source projects in the world. Read about the history of Firefox, how it came into existence and ruled the world wide web.itsfoss.com
OP
Terminal Velocity
Well-Known Member
You are on topic
Once upon a time, they used a pseudonym of mine in an advertisement in the NYT. If you donated X-amount of dollars to Mozilla, they included your name in a 2 page advertisement. I was on that list.
I also used to pay for Opera, back in the day.
Anyhow, Firefox was new and awesome. I still appreciate Mozilla, but Firefox is my 'third' browser. (I use different browsers for different things.) Firefox has its own role and it's pretty slight with maybe a dozen open tabs.
I didn't stop donating, but I stopped donating as much. The reason I continue to donate is because I love (not ironically) their email client. Thunderbird is the closest thing to old school OutlookExpress (not Outlook) I can find and that is awesome. The loss of Thunderbird would be a problem for me, so I continue to give my monthly dues to Mozilla.
And, yes, I'm one of those folks that puts their money where their mouth is. I donate to a number of projects on a regular basis. I could probably write all these donations off, but they don't equate enough to matter at the end of the day.
So, I technically keep supporting Mozilla. I do so for Thunderbird reasons, however.
As for the vast support Linux distros give Firefox, that's a good thing. While it's not a high percentage, Firefox still accounts for a bunch of browser use. Being the default in Linux is probably a good thing, as it helps that along. Though, we're less like Windows users and are more comfortable changing our default browser...
Without those default installs, Firefox would become more obscure. Again, it's not much, but Google needs some competition in the sphere. We don't want Google to have a total monopoly, though that's not enough incentive to switch my default browsers around.
I also used to pay for Opera, back in the day.
Anyhow, Firefox was new and awesome. I still appreciate Mozilla, but Firefox is my 'third' browser. (I use different browsers for different things.) Firefox has its own role and it's pretty slight with maybe a dozen open tabs.
I didn't stop donating, but I stopped donating as much. The reason I continue to donate is because I love (not ironically) their email client. Thunderbird is the closest thing to old school OutlookExpress (not Outlook) I can find and that is awesome. The loss of Thunderbird would be a problem for me, so I continue to give my monthly dues to Mozilla.
And, yes, I'm one of those folks that puts their money where their mouth is. I donate to a number of projects on a regular basis. I could probably write all these donations off, but they don't equate enough to matter at the end of the day.
So, I technically keep supporting Mozilla. I do so for Thunderbird reasons, however.
As for the vast support Linux distros give Firefox, that's a good thing. While it's not a high percentage, Firefox still accounts for a bunch of browser use. Being the default in Linux is probably a good thing, as it helps that along. Though, we're less like Windows users and are more comfortable changing our default browser...
Without those default installs, Firefox would become more obscure. Again, it's not much, but Google needs some competition in the sphere. We don't want Google to have a total monopoly, though that's not enough incentive to switch my default browsers around.
Not to mention it allows you to do whatever you want to it, unlike all other browsers. You can customize it in any way you want. This what my Firefox looks like after nearly 20 years of customizations. You'd never guess what the browser is, especially if I decided to change the icon on the panel.
No other browser allows you to change its face this much.
Reading the link provided, it's clear firefox started in 2002, a good decade after linux hit the net. Wikipedia has an entry on the history as well. Before the firefox browser, there was Netscape from around the mid 1990s, but before both of them was lynx which is a text browser, and is still maintained.
Firefox has such a huge selection of extensions and add-ons, and such a huge number of configurable variables in the about:config facility, it's a hacker's delight since one can alter it in innumerable ways. I guess that both it's free and open source aspect, and it's capacity to accommodate a very wide range of needs and interests have made it so attractive to such a great number of linux distros.
Me, I run so many different 'portable' browsers - specially built for Puppy, though with a few tweaks (mainly permission changes, I'd guess) they'd probably run in any distro - that I don't really have a "default" browser as such. I just fire up whatever takes my fancy for the day..!!
As for FF being more configurable, mmm.....I dunno so much. Chromium and its 'clones' are just as 'hackable'; it's all down to the vast array of available '--switches' (these all go on the wrapper-script's 'Exec' line) as listed here by Peter Beverloo:-
https://peter.sh/experiments/chromium-command-line-switches/
As so often, it comes down to how much time & effort the individual user wants to spend on the "issue".
Mike.
As for FF being more configurable, mmm.....I dunno so much. Chromium and its 'clones' are just as 'hackable'; it's all down to the vast array of available '--switches' (these all go on the wrapper-script's 'Exec' line) as listed here by Peter Beverloo:-
https://peter.sh/experiments/chromium-command-line-switches/
As so often, it comes down to how much time & effort the individual user wants to spend on the "issue".
Mike.
Last edited:
I think that's worthwhile to bring up: even though chrome doesn't come pre-installed, i have never had an issue installing it. I think the main thing is that firefox is more "ideologically" consistent with the FOSS community. Google clearly isn't trustworthy in terms of how they manage the information you give them, as their whole business model is based on the information they collect from both their search engine and browser.Me, I run so many different 'portable' browsers - specially built for Puppy, though with a few tweaks (mainly permission changes, I'd guess) they'd probably run in any distro - that I don't really have a "default" browser as such. I just fire up whatever takes my fancy for the day..!!
As for FF being more configurable, mmm.....I dunno so much. Chromium and its 'clones' are just as 'hackable; it's all down to the vast array of available '--switches' (these all go on the wrapper-script's 'Exec' line) as listed here by Peter Beverloo:-
https://peter.sh/experiments/chromium-command-line-switches/
As so often, it comes down to how much time & effort the individual user wants to spend on the"issue".
Mike.
OP
Terminal Velocity
Well-Known Member
Preinstalled Chrome in Linux I'm sure it will send ripples in communities around the world
If that ever happened to my distro I'd drop it in a heartbeat.
This was more true in the past; not so much today.
