But what would be the point? For me Brave is essentially Firefox-level privacy with Chrome-level compatibility, performance and reliability. A Gecko-based Brave would be just Firefox with a few UI changes and maybe somewhat fewer compatibility issues until Google gets around to creating harder ones.
This argument I can understand, and I'm torn between Firefox and Brave because of it. Maybe the best option for people like me is to use both. Or create a Brave-like browser with Gecko?
Brave is based on Chromium, it lacks some of the privacy centric features that are found in Gecko browsers. 1st party isolation,tracker blocking, containers, anti fingerprinting measures and SNI encryption are some things I can think of right now (maybe chrome as caught up now?)
Plus, Google controls Chromium and Firefox is literally the only alternative now. They push changes that are against or in in ignorance of of web standards because they can. Downstream browsers like brave,edge and opera basically have to accept whatever Google says. This isn't good for the web at all. Frankly there should be an anti-trust suit against Google for this because it is very anti-competitive.
Your's is an interesting angle that I hadn't thought of. I think the counter to it would be: Brave inadvertently helps Google, by improving Chromium, and it would be better if they inadvertently helped Mozilla, by improving Gecko. Building a browser engine is a big undertaking and I think most people would agree that more time and energy being invested in Gecko would be a good thing.
Brave looks really cool, but it uses chromium so its hands are forever tied to google. I remember they considered Gecko but rejected it for some reason.
Brave also inadvertently helps Google by contributing to the overall stats of Blink users and decreasing Firefox's visible marketshare. Firefox's shrinking marketshare marks it for "death" in a lot of little papercut ways. More users using Gecko would send more messages to web developers investing in which markets to pursue.
Brave being based off chrome is actually great and your comment illustrates that. If it is based on FF, it will cut into FF market share which is already shrinking. Now, it cuts into Chrome which means two privacy focused browser instead of one.
The reason why Brave can be Brave, is because it can hide under Chrome. Webpage owners will build their webpages Chrome-compatible, which makes them Brave-compatible, so whether they make any money off of supporting Brave is unimportant.
Mozilla can't do the same with Firefox, because they don't have anything to hide under. They rely on webpage owners making money off of Firefox, otherwise they're not going to build/test against Firefox.
Mozilla can be Brave with Firefox for iOS, and with Firefox Focus as well, because there they don't use Gecko as layout engine, they hide underneath someone else's layout engine. (Apple forces other browsers to use WebKit on iOS; Firefox Focus for Android uses Android Webview because it keeps the binary small, which is important as it's sort of meant to be a secondary browser.)
So, they're most definitely not doing the same for desktop and Android Firefox. It would kill Firefox/Gecko in no time, if they did that. It wouldn't be brave, it'd be suicide.
I don’t think Mozilla should have Brave per se, but it shows some of the work they could have done.
If they had to literally skin chrome to do then I guess they could. But they should be capable of so much more.
Specially Brave is faster to launch and uses less resources than Firefox and had privacy and ad blocking features turned on by default. I particularly like the little bug that shows you how much bloat it’s blocked.
As I understand it, Gecko is much harder to work with, so it would take a lot of time to make something like brave compatible with both Chromium and Gecko/Firefox's APIs (or to even only move to Gecko/FF). See the following comment from [0]:
> More significantly, in my book: it’s difficult to use Gecko and Firefox in these ways. Even the simplest app requires substantial and arcane boilerplate. And the docs are comprehensive but outdated. The platform may be powerful, but it’s hard to use.
There's also now qbrt[1], but the readme itself recommends not using it, and it was last updated 7 months ago. If this matures to a usable state, I can see Brave developers considering it.
Brave is Chromium which is google so that one is a bit of a no .. i get it that its not the same and they take out all the phone home code etc but your still supporting google at the end of the day.
I know it isn't Firefox, but Brave is a Chromium-based browser that has Tor built-in with their 'Private Tabs'. It is a really nice privacy focused browser. Everything good about Chrome, without everything bad about Google.
I also see how Brave likes to thrive on anti-Google pro-privacy camp and I personally pick Firefox over Brave any day if the week.
There is de-Googled Chromium OS project, but Brave takes a few steps sideways by making further changes such as proxying location services, safe browsing API, etc. I doubt a 12 y/o could compile it though, let alone in 2 hours.
You do know Brave is built on top of Chromium which is funded by Google right? I won't call a browser that relies so much on Google as a sustainable alternative to Chrome.
reply