Does /g/ approve of waterfox?

>>59078750
What is that?

>>59079012
I got to say the same I would say if you want something chrome like "Chromoto" or something that I always loved is "Vivaldi"

>>59078750
There is literally NO REASON to use it over Firefox.

>>59078750
Firefox Placebo edition. Like all the 0 effort forks out there.

>>59079051
kek, nice bait

>>59078750
Waterfox should not exist. Vivaldi FTW

>>59079525
>closed source
>>59079389
it will support legacy addons longer than firefox, and developer isn't liberal group of people

>>59079389
There is a removal of useless "features."

>>59078750
Yes.
>>59079389
Udum

>>59078750
Some guy takes firefox, makes some changes in about:config, adds a few images and confetti and all of a sudden it's a new browser.
I remember a guy making a firefox based browser just to steal people's shit.

File: ass band.png (351KB, 500x320px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 500x320px

>>59082038
You literally have no idea what you're talking about and should kill yourself.

>>59079389
Except every reason.

>>59078750
No. It's a meme placebo tier browser.
If you don't want to use regular old Firefox then just use nightly instead. It gets you a cool dark icon and theme also, which is the only thing you autists care about.
It also gets all the speed and performance updates before any other branch.

>>59082291
Funny how it's slower than waterfox then, isn't it?

>>59082481
Except it literally isn't. I'm convinced waterfox has hired shills in a last ditch effort to stay relevant.
Firefox nightly is almost at the same speed as chrome/chromium. Regular Firefox (which waterfox is based on) is slow as fuck in comparison.

>>59082503
>Firefox nightly is almost at the same speed as chrome/chromium

Bullshit. I tried 3 different browsers:

>standard Firefox, 32bit
>Firefox nightly, 64bit
>chromium

Both Firefox builds were equally slow, nightly wasn't faster at all. Chromium was much, much faster and more responsive, both in loading websites and the UI of the browser. I'm still using Firefox because chromium is too much of a Google botnet, but the speed really makes me want to switch already.

>>59082291
Nightly sucks. Breaks my addons way too much. I hate Waterfox's logo but it's great otherwise.

>>59083075
The speed isn't that much comparable for me on Waterfox vs Iridium or Chrome on speed. Well worth the price to get all the customization I please.

>>59083140
I've literally never had any issues with add ons breaking.
What specifically doesn't work?

>>59078750
If your reason for using waterfox is 64-bit, don't. Firefox added 64-bit support a while back.

>>59083237
Menu Wizard just to name one. Not stable enough branch for me. I use Firefox for the addons not the core.

File: cyberfox 1.png (47KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 256x256px

What are /g/'s thoughts on Cyberfox?

>>59083364
also a placebo meme.
The only fork of firefox that is worth using is pale moon.

>>59083274
This.

>>59083364
Unsure only use WaterFox