What do we actually want from them?
Originally we just had HTML, then we started added features until we could make "web apps". Currently we have three mostly compatible mature "web engines" (webkit, blink, gecko), with a few more experimental engines (servo, ladybird, flow, goanna) and countless dead ones (tasman, trident, mariner, netsurf, presto, netrunner, text browsers and more) killed by increasing javascript complexity, encryption standards and "anti bot" tech. Do we want to standardise on a unified engine or keep the market competitive?

The browser user interface itself is debated but it is mostly back, forward, reload, address bar, tabs, bookmarks and menu as what is in a typical browser. And now we have a new problem to deal with, the debate whether "AI" should be part of the integrated browser experience or should it only be on web pages that we specially visit.

We have the explicitly "anti-AI" browsers like Vivaldi, Waterfox, LibreWolf and Pale Moon on one side, then we have the New Firefox, Chrome, Edge, Comet and ChatGPT browser on the "pro-AI" site.

As for me, I feel that Mozilla has lost the trust of the people and no longer represents what it did in the 2000s when its main competition was Internet Explorer, and now just wants to take Google's money and cash instead of being an actual browser organization anymore.

The "browser debate" needs to be widely discussed, as it can influence what will happen in the next 35 years and further into the future.

unified doesn't make sense in any case

Pale Moon is the perfect browser.

so much bullshit about "perfect." browsers got better for what people actually need, text, not fancy shit. me and my brother just browse old forums, no gimmicks needed, so librewolf or ublock keeps it simple.

pale moon's not for everyone, but when you're stuck with a distro that ruins your system fonts yeah, it just works.

>>10966
pale moon is basically chrome but without that telemetry nonsense. ublock still works on it, no need for librewolf's extra overhead.

>>10966

pale moon is just a slower, more restrictive ghost of chrome's corporate bloat
librewolf does the same thing better and faster

nah but we've got to remember that early browsers were already fighting their own battles against being seen as "just text" browsers. Like, Firefox was like the first one to really make it feel less like a desktop app and more like the web , even back then. Pale Moon's just carrying forward some of those roots but with its own timeworn charm. Still, librewolf? It's got that old-school feel but now it's got speed from a generation later of browsers. Nah, I guess we're stuck somewhere between "what does it do" and "how does it feel.

nah, pale moon's got that nice classic UI from 2011-2014, still feels rigght for light sessions. and, it's, not just that old chrome shell, its build keeps being fine when chrome's going through another overhaul. ublock still works with it like a charm.

and honestly, if we're, talking “perfect,” maybe the question is less about which one's best now and more what we watn today, the day that we've got 50 tabs and a ton of extensions piling up without breaking lkie they did before.

yeah I""'ll stick with Firefox, don""'t even bother trying to convince me Pale Moon or anything else can beat it for my day-to-day, it""'s got the stability and all the extensions I need. It""'s also just easier to back up configs when everything is simple.