If not firefox then what?

Brave

SeaMonkey

>>60713606
Waterfox is the best, anything else is just autism tier

>>60713606
netscape
honestly 95% of sites will still work, more like 99% if you fake your useragent really

i just wish there was a good adblocker

Brave.

>>60713606
Internet Explorer

>>60713775
There's no way. Opera's only been dead for a few years and I'm starting to have more issues with websites.

>>60713606
what plugins do you need that you can't get on chromium?

>>60713606
I'd like Vodkafox instead of Waterfox

File: nightly.png (138KB, 620x277px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 620x277px

Firefox Nightly

Waterfox is pointless since Firefox itself is 64bit

Use Firefox. Don't fall for the FUD.
Since the Eich shitshow (he wasn't fired you asswipes), /g/ has been nothing but non-stop FUD against Mozilla.
Just use Firefox (or Icecat if you want a libre browser). It's good and will become even better once the 57 version is released.

File: tmp0d3i5d4fQutebrowser.svg.png (50KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 650x650px

all fields qutebrowser

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-02 at 5.18.15 PM.png (98KB, 758x429px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 758x429px

>>60715139
I don't wanna leave Firefox, I've been using it for nearly 11 years now but once they drop XUL and replace it with WebExtensions it'll literally be a Chrome copycat with a different rendering engine.

Did everyone forget when everyone on /g/ was going to drop it when they started the new UI in 4.0 or when they announced extensions had to be verified last year?

I know there is more but you get the idea people will keep using it because there isn't any good alternative and it still works fine.

>>60715139
>will become even better once the 57 version is released

That's just a straight up lie and you know it. That update is single-handedly going to destroy half the GUI customization and advanced plugin features available, and not one person outside of Mozilla wants it, asked for it, or supports it

>>60713606
Lynx

>>60715159

>>60715097
64-bit firefox is a joke

>>60716208
Maybe for Windows

File: 1495950915680-co.jpg (58KB, 640x625px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 640x625px

>>60715234
>>60715467
The XUL extension replacement is supported by anyone who isn't retarded.
>XUL extensions have the same amount of access to your OS as Firefox does, so they can download and execute scripts, modify the /home/ directory, etc.
>there is no way to limit an extension's permissions or sandbox it
>XUL extensions makes it harder to implement multithread
>XUL extensions depend on Gecko, so any update to the browser may render them unusable
>guaranteeing that every (or most) extensions don't break with an update and reviewing every add-on uploaded to the addon store is too taxing for Mozilla
>WebExtensions have thousands of developers and have 90 % of Firefox addons so the change is going to be much smoother than making a new addon architrcture
>some of the addons that cannot be ported to WebExtensions will be made a part of the browser (like TreeStyleTabs), and Mozilla is developing new APIs to give developers access to some of the same functions XUL allowed
The truth is most addons will "survive" and still be useful. The DownThemAll! """developer""" is just a crybaby whining because he doesn't want to learn a new way to do shit (like the retarded webdevs that refuse to move on from Flash Player) and because Mozilla doesn't develop new APIs just for him. Truth is, there are already addons with DTA! Functionality in Chrome, or it can be easily replaced with a separate program.
After FF57, every user will have access to multithread, improved security and better control over extensions. Is it bad to lose dome functionality? Yes, but XUL extensions have to die.

>>60716246
64b ff is like half-rolled on every operating system, isn't it?

>>60716208
Waterfox is a placebo

Safari

>>60716283
No, just on yours. Real operating systems have had fully functional 64-bit Fx for years.

>>60716283
Frefox has had a 64-bit builds in GNU, BSD and Mac OS for many, many years now. Only Windows was stick with 32-bit builds only until last year, for some unknown reason.

>>60716325
*Linux

Palemoon master race reporting in.

File: 1496151619671-g.png (80KB, 500x501px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 500x501px

>>60716350
The operating system is called GNU, not Linux. By calling it Linux you are undermining the FSF and their mission.
>b-but Linux is easier and sounds cooler
That's what the Linux Foundation wants you to think. A lot of corporations depend on GNU software, yet they all donate money and developers to the Linux Foundation and not to the FSF, why? Because all they hear is "Linux".
Furthermore, it is illogical and wrong to call it "Linux" since there are a lot of OSes (mainly embedded ones) that do use Linux, but no GNU code. We also have Android and Chrome OS running Linux, but no GNU code.
The opposite is also true: GNU can run on top of HURD, Linux, kBSD, the Solaris kernel, MINIX and; through a very peculiar turn of events, the NT kernel.
Calling the OS "Linux" is disrespectful to the FSF and their developers, and empowers the Linux Foundation over it.

>>60716456
It's just Linux.

palemoon without flash is my primary browser
chrome with flash is my "this needs flash" and gmail browser

sometimes i try opera and vivaldi but i'm continually left unimpressed

>>60713606
Chromium with security plugin

>>60716456
>Calling the OS "Linux" is disrespectful to the FSF and their developers, and empowers the Linux Foundation over it.
>By calling it Linux you are undermining the FSF and their mission.

I fully intend to.

>>60713654
fpbp

>>60713606
> Palemoon is ancient shit
This ancient shit can access every site ive ever been to.

>>60716456
The NT kernel with GNU utils isn't what people mean when they say "Linux" though. This just reinforces the fact that the OS is Linux and GNU is just a suit of helper software which is not part of the OS.

>>60713775
I hope this is bait

I just tried Netscape the other day on a standard vBulletin forum and it was a fucking nightmare to display the page correctly and let alone make a post.

Netscape is sadly obsolete fucktard

>>60717872
I'd like to interject for a moment. What you refer to as NT with cygwin installed is in fact, GNU/Windows or as I've recently taken to call it, GNU + Windows

>>60717939
>Using Cygwin in the current year

File: icecat.png (513KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 900x900px

gnu/freedom master race