Right now is the best period of time yet for Firefox-based browser, especially when most alternative browsers are Chrome-based.

While there are a bunch of forks like Librewolf and Palemoon, they provide features mainly for power users like hardened privacy and tweaked user-prefs. A year ago the only fork I knew of, based on recent stable versions of Firefox and added productivity features on top was Floorp. I was very surprised at the hype and sudden popularity of Zen Browser in the past few months and have been curious why it grew so much faster than Floorp which has been around for much longer, look at the Github star graph: https://star-history.com/#zen-browser%2Fdesktop=&Date=. Zen Browser currently has 19.3K stars while Floorp has 6.1K.

Reasons I can think of are the following: heavy promotion of the browser by the devs and community on places like Reddit along with emphasizing its ‘zen’ philosophy, really fast development (it now has way more features than Floorp), and the Zen mods store, where you can install CSS mods.

What are your thoughts and reasons for Zen Browser becoming so popular so fast? (while its not mainstream, it did grow fast in among Firefox and power users)

  • devfuuu@lemmy.worldEnglish
    262·
    3 days ago

    I’ll start believing or caring about any alternative browsers when I see a big influx of money comming to a browser project. Just grabbing a codebase and changing some settings and releasing it with a new name is not really creating or maintaining a browser. People keep thinking that it’s easy to maintain a huge project like a browser by just praying and volunteers.

    • nyan@sh.itjust.works
      42·
      2 days ago

      Money isn’t important. Some complex software is, in fact, maintained by unpaid volunteers who feel strongly about the project. That doesn’t mean it’s easy (in fact it’s quite difficult to keep the lights on and the code up-to-date), but it is A Thing That Happens despite being difficult.

      What is important is the size of the codebase (in the case of a fork, that’s the code either written for the fork or code that the fork preserves and maintains that isn’t in the original anymore), the length of time it’s been actively worked on, and the bus factor. Some would-be browser forks are indeed trivial and ephemeral one-man shows. Others have years of active commit history, carry tens or even hundreds of thousands of lines of novel or preserved code, and have many people working on them.

        • weststadtgesicht@discuss.tchncs.de
          3·
          2 days ago

          Yeah I think most complex and long-term OSS projects have “employed” contributors paid by donations or sponsorships (e.g. Linux, Blender, LibreOffice, …)

        • nyan@sh.itjust.works
          11·
          1 day ago

          A whole bunch of non-user-facing projects providing vital libraries that are largely ignored until something blows up in people’s faces, as happened with openssl some years ago. Some of them contain quite a bit of code (for example, ffmpeg, which underpins a lot of open-source media playback software). Among browsers specifically, Pale Moon has been around for years, is maintaining a lot of code no longer carried by Firefox along with a fair amount of original code, and has no cash source beyond user donations, which might stretch to paying for the servers in a good month.

          The projects with corporate sponsorship, or even a steady flow of large donations, are in the minority. There’s a reason the xkcd about the “project some random person in Nebraska has been thanklessly maintaining since 2003” exists.

          • beleza pura
            2·
            1 day ago

            you’re confusing importance with complexity

            openssl is a vital part of the web, but it is a small tool

            pale moon leverages the hundreds of thousands of person-hours put into firefox up until the fork. the work they put on their original code is negligible in comparison

            there is literally no project led by unpaid volunteers that’s able to output the amount of work necessary to maintain a browser and keep it up to date with web standards, let alone add new features

            • nyan@sh.itjust.works
              11·
              1 day ago

              openssl is a vital part of the web, but it is a small tool

              You consider 61.7MB of source code “small”? (That’s for openssl 3.3.2, and may not include some rust code that isn’t in the gzipped main code package.) I think maybe you need to recalibrate a bit.

                • nyan@sh.itjust.works
                  11·
                  1 day ago

                  You just said “large”. I would consider any project with 10MB or more of source “large”. Firefox is certainly large by that standard, but so is openssl. If your standard for “large” is “has at least as much code as Firefox”, then according to you, the Linux kernel is a small project.