(Tangent alert) Why does modern Firefox suck so much?

Unread post by **wuggy** » 16 Apr 2026, 05:30

Recently had to use and compile modern Firefox, and it is an experience straight from hell.
(Whoever thought it was a good idea to shove rust into Firefox seriously needs a mental checkup.)

For one, why does it take 3 hours to compile, whereas UXP takes 20 mins? (Spoiler, most of that is just compiling Rust packages)

And it's also compiling stupid shit like WebVR, in the WINDOWS VERSION. Maybe it would make an ounce of sense if it was on Android or something similar to that, but still, WHY?

So-called "modern" web browsers are the most stupid shit I have ever seen. All a web browser needs to do is load pages, maybe a sprinkle of JavaScript, not whatever the modern web's crap is.

Iffy-chan · Unread post by **Iffy-chan** » 16 Apr 2026, 07:21

I mean, I've already linked to a gigantic webpage that talks about this previously: https://digdeeper.club/articles/mozilla.xhtml

TL;DR they're more focused on controlled-opposition performative activism than building a browser. It's intentional.

As for web developers being morons, it's both a mix of agenda-ism, "smart" devices and laziness.

I wish something independent like NetSurf would get more attention, to be quite honest. I've always liked the idea of a totally independently written browser (not to mention, it's been ported to some interesting platforms, such as RISC OS and the Dreamcast).

The-10-Pen · Unread post by **The-10-Pen** » 16 Apr 2026, 11:32

I kinda think that Firefox Sucks So Much because their userbase just "accepts" unconventional aspects of Firefox without REAL thought behind it.

With RESPECT towards members here, we have that "blind acceptance" even HERE.

I realize that I'm in the minority, doesn't mean I can't be heard.

I cite Firefox's background DNS (merely as a RECENT discussion herein).
These "background" connections, regardless of how "trivial" or data-centric, FORCE software firewall rules to be OPENED WIDER.
Things like "loopback" rules. I will not go into detail, research yourself! This has been a Firefox "negative" for over TWENTY YEARS.
If you use very strict parent-process-based firewall rules, Firefox has to be opened WIDER than browsers without these "trivial" DNS connections.
Call me paranoid, DON'T CARE!

To me, Firefox users are COMPLACENT and MAKE UP EXCUSES when "called out".
Forgive me for saying so, but they see themselves as "different" and "going against the grain" and MAKE EXCUSES to label it as "right".

There are some NON-COMPLACENT users - ie, things like this --
https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/browsing/firefox-users-slam-mozilla-over-controversial-data-privacy-update

But the reality is that MOST users of Firefox really DON'T CARE, they have BLIND TRUST in Firefox and create excuses when called out on it.
"But it's the lesser of two evils", or something like that.

I can't speak towards COMPILING Firefox, I have done it, but I also didn't trust my output.
But then again, I didn't really trust the input "base code" either.

The-10-Pen · Unread post by **The-10-Pen** » 16 Apr 2026, 13:00

I suppose I should add the DISCLAIMER that when I say "most Firefox users", I refer to folks like my SISTER and NOT folks that become members of web sites such as this. Something my sister would NEVER do. Facebook, yes. Something real like this, no, never in a million years. And that subset of "most Firefox users" couldn't tell you the difference between DNS, TCP, or UDP. But could list three dozen acronyms used on Facebook that I would have to look up to know what the H#ll she is trying to say.

DoNotThrowOldPCsAway · 16 Apr 2026, 15:14

Anyone else noticed how fast version 148 was only for the whole speed improvement to go away in 149?

The-10-Pen · Unread post by **The-10-Pen** » 16 Apr 2026, 18:40

DoNotThrowOldPCsAway wrote: ↑16 Apr 2026, 15:14 Anyone else noticed how fast version 148 was only for the whole speed improvement to go away in 149?

: 2026-04-16_14-28-19.jpg (245.58 KiB) Viewed 74 times

The-10-Pen · Unread post by **The-10-Pen** » 16 Apr 2026, 19:03

: 2026-04-16_14-56-30.jpg (141.27 KiB) Viewed 72 times

: 2026-04-16_14-52-51.jpg (161.78 KiB) Viewed 72 times

: 2026-04-16_14-50-36.jpg (159.1 KiB) Viewed 72 times

Unread post by **wuggy** » 16 Apr 2026, 19:15

Can you test Dactyloidae against this? I want to see what you get.

The-10-Pen · Unread post by **The-10-Pen** » 16 Apr 2026, 19:18

wuggy wrote: ↑16 Apr 2026, 19:15 Can you test Dactyloidae against this? I want to see what you get.

Absolutely... One moment...

The-10-Pen · Unread post by **The-10-Pen** » 16 Apr 2026, 19:44

All of these (and previous) were done in a 4GB RAM TeamOS Win11 Ultra Lite VM where I strip away additional items that TeamOS still leaves in.
With no background or on-the-side "load" while performing test. No other apps open other than browser being tested at the time.
No extensions, out of the box, as-is, no config changes of any kind.

Comparing Dact-ae to "modern" seems UNFAIR, so I include a more apples-to-apples comparison with UXP Serpent 52 and Official Pale Moon.
I've never ran UXP Serpent 55 to know where it would fall in comparison.

: 2026-04-16_15-41-59.jpg (162.45 KiB) Viewed 45 times

: 2026-04-16_15-33-30.jpg (164.91 KiB) Viewed 45 times

: 2026-04-16_15-24-54.jpg (173.43 KiB) Viewed 45 times

The-10-Pen · Unread post by **The-10-Pen** » 16 Apr 2026, 19:51

Just for reference. Also in the same Win11 VM as all above screencaps. This is what I use on any of my XP machines/VMs.

: 2026-04-16_15-48-34.jpg (153.66 KiB) Viewed 41 times

Iffy-chan · Unread post by **Iffy-chan** » 16 Apr 2026, 20:06

The-10-Pen wrote: ↑16 Apr 2026, 11:32 "But it's the lesser of two evils", or something like that.

It's an extremely 'old school' attitude to be viciously anti-Chromium and pro-Firefox in technical-minded communities, which is probably a holdover from the IE6-era rivalry days... but also part of a performative/symbolic 'fuck you' to Big Tech, without realising Mozilla are very much a part of that Big Tech themselves.

'Firefox good because backed by nonprofit', and 'Chromium bad because backed by for-profit' is a very simple way of looking at things, and isn't usually correct either.

Not to mention, the way Mozilla treated the SeaMonkey team also cemented my opinion of them as a bunch of establishment crooks worse than Google could ever be. If they weren't so disingenuous about 'ooh we're the good guys!!!! please like us!!!' and just admitted they're a bunch of fucking cunts I'd probably like them just that little bit more, but as it stands, their browser is not only shite but they are also a bunch of two-faced wankers along with it.

The-10-Pen · Unread post by **The-10-Pen** » 16 Apr 2026, 20:09

Iffy-chan wrote: ↑16 Apr 2026, 20:06 ↑

Agreed !!!

Unread post by **Duke** » 16 Apr 2026, 21:00

Iffy-chan wrote: ↑16 Apr 2026, 20:06 It's an extremely 'old school' attitude to be viciously anti-Chromium

OK, be 'modern' and go with Chrome then. It's well known to be much better about privacy than Firefox and the Google guys are soooo cool with all of us

Food for thought: read about Manifest V3:
https://ublockorigin.com

Eclipse Community