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

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 · 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 · 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 · 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 · Post by **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 · 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 21 times

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

: 2026-04-16_14-56-30.jpg (141.27 KiB) Viewed 19 times

: 2026-04-16_14-52-51.jpg (161.78 KiB) Viewed 19 times

: 2026-04-16_14-50-36.jpg (159.1 KiB) Viewed 19 times

Post by **wuggy** » 16 Apr 2026, 19:15

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

The-10-Pen · 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...

Eclipse Community