They alienate people who can’t cope with change - but change is needed if Firefox doesn’t want to disappear into irrelevance. They need to have as many communication channels open as they can, and they need to implement features that might pull in new users. They actually go out of their way to make sure new features are optional, so that legacy users can keep their experience, but even implementing the possibility of using LLMs in the browser (which is pretty much a standard thing in browsers nowadays) made these FOSS users screech like harpies - it’s not like implementing a side view window (they already had those) that integraties a few API calls was a huge investment in manpower or resources. This behavior extends to the vast majority of FF forks.
I was using Librewolf, Zen Browser and Waterfox (on Android) before. Their immature screeching made me switch back to Firefox after many years. Privacy-wise i am pretty sure the loss of Librewolf’s features are more than compensated by being part of a much larger group of people with my browser / extensions choice.
Their immature screeching made me switch back to Firefox after many years.
Can you elaborate on this a bit? I’ve been using Librewolf for a while now and while I understand they take a sort of hardcore stance on the privacy stuff and its at times a bit annoying, I haven’t had any major issues with actually using it. Though I did download Waterfox recently and have been meaning to give it a go, seems a bit more chill.
Anyway, I’m unaware of any “immature screeching” (mainly because of my own ignorance, not disputing that this hasn’t happened, just looking for more information), could you expand on that?
Their stance regarding LLM code is simply not sustainable, because in the foreseeable future discerning between human written code and LLM code will become impossible. Every tool that can identify LLM code is at the same time the tool used for adversarial training.
In the end, it is not important where the code came from. What counts is that people who submit code take responsibility for their code, regardless of how it was created - because you won’t be able to filter for LLM code, but you can filter for quality.
I tried to find it myself, but all I could find is about them removing AI features from the browser. I admit, I’m not the best at using interwebs searches these days (also most of the search engines suck ass anyway), so it might be just me not finding the correct thing.
There is zero reason to not use both. The are supposedly a FOSS organization yet they alienate FOSS users.
They alienate people who can’t cope with change - but change is needed if Firefox doesn’t want to disappear into irrelevance. They need to have as many communication channels open as they can, and they need to implement features that might pull in new users. They actually go out of their way to make sure new features are optional, so that legacy users can keep their experience, but even implementing the possibility of using LLMs in the browser (which is pretty much a standard thing in browsers nowadays) made these FOSS users screech like harpies - it’s not like implementing a side view window (they already had those) that integraties a few API calls was a huge investment in manpower or resources. This behavior extends to the vast majority of FF forks.
I was using Librewolf, Zen Browser and Waterfox (on Android) before. Their immature screeching made me switch back to Firefox after many years. Privacy-wise i am pretty sure the loss of Librewolf’s features are more than compensated by being part of a much larger group of people with my browser / extensions choice.
Can you elaborate on this a bit? I’ve been using Librewolf for a while now and while I understand they take a sort of hardcore stance on the privacy stuff and its at times a bit annoying, I haven’t had any major issues with actually using it. Though I did download Waterfox recently and have been meaning to give it a go, seems a bit more chill.
Anyway, I’m unaware of any “immature screeching” (mainly because of my own ignorance, not disputing that this hasn’t happened, just looking for more information), could you expand on that?
Their stance regarding LLM code is simply not sustainable, because in the foreseeable future discerning between human written code and LLM code will become impossible. Every tool that can identify LLM code is at the same time the tool used for adversarial training.
In the end, it is not important where the code came from. What counts is that people who submit code take responsibility for their code, regardless of how it was created - because you won’t be able to filter for LLM code, but you can filter for quality.
What is their stance regarding LLM code?
I tried to find it myself, but all I could find is about them removing AI features from the browser. I admit, I’m not the best at using interwebs searches these days (also most of the search engines suck ass anyway), so it might be just me not finding the correct thing.