I just switched to Waterfox. Other than having to setup desktop links manually, it’s basically seamless from Firefox.
How would this differ?
this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2026
407 points (99.3% liked)
Wikipedia
4650 readers
299 users here now
A place to share interesting articles from Wikipedia.
Rules:
- Only links to Wikipedia permitted
- Please stick to the format "Article Title (other descriptive text/editorialization)"
- Tick the NSFW box for submissions with inappropriate thumbnails
- On Casual Tuesdays, we allow submissions from wikis other than Wikipedia.
Recommended:
- Use the search box to see if someone has previously submitted an article. Some apps will also notify you if you are resubmitting an article previously shared on Lemmy.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
- Both browsers are more private OOTB than Firefox.
- LibreWolf has more privacy- and security-oriented defaults than Waterfox, like a halfway point between Firefox and Tor Browser:
- It enables Resist Fingerprinting by default
- It discards browsing history by default
- It has a new Settings menu that makes it relatively easy to control these features that tend to break websites.
- It lacks some of the customization features Waterfox pioneered.
Librewolf runs better on windows from experience.
Also my professors' lecture recordings on the bullshit microsoft cloud storage doesn't open on waterfox but does open on librewolf.
I still like waterfox more tho. It feels lighter and runs on android.
I feel torn regarding the lectures. Bs lectures sound bad, but being forced to use microslop seems somehow worse.
I have a few pcs and laptops on the go atm, so I plan to swap one to Librewolf and see hope it goes vs. Waterfox.
Unless I notice or am impressed by something noteworthy, I’ll probably just stick with Waterfox on the others for now.
You know, firefox was a decent name all in all.. but can we stop naming browsers NounNoun?
LibreWolf
LadyBird
WaterFox
IronFox
IceRaven
IceCat
FireDragon
IceWeasel
SeaMonkey
SwiftFox
I get it, it's based on firefox^*^.
(^*^I didn't check that every one of those is based on firefox or even a browser, I just did a quick search of firefox alternatives to pad my list since i didn't have them memorized)
Out of those you listed, LibreWolf and SwiftFox are not NounNoun: they are AdjectiveNoun.
Fair enough.
- Netscape
- Internet Explorer
- Safari
- Opera
I'm sensing a trend here.....
How about we start going with verb adjective?
- Jump Big
- Shout More
- Deny Cute
How about a 16 word security key
load more comments
(1 replies)
If you use Firefox sync, do not sign in in LibreWolf. It will ruin your settings.
I use FF sync in LW to keep my desktop and laptop synced. Haven't had any issues, even when switching between Win10 and a few Linux distros.
edit - when I switched to LW I stopped syncing with FF entirely.
All of them? I noticed Firefox shit the bead in general.
I've been using Mullvad browser that was recommended for having the strongest anti-fingerprinting features. I would be interested in whether anyone has any idea how Mullvad browser and LibreWolf compare and which is "better" (or are they targeting different threat models?)
Edit: here's a resource in case anyone else is interested. Also one of my main privacy info sources (Techlore YouTube channel) recommends Mullvad (and LibreWolf too, but prefers Mullvad). I find less sites break with Mullvad compared to LibreWolf.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Just made the switch. Is there an easy way to import old Firefox profile locally? I obviously don't want to use Firefox Sync.
You can import history, bookmarks etc as CSV. Or do you mean something different with profile?
A firefox "profile" is a directory with all current user's data on disk. This includes history and bookmarks, but also saved settings, passwords, extensions, cache etc. I would like to not just copy all of that, but select specific things. But its ok to start with a clean browser with only bookmarks imported for now.
I still don't understand why people are recently switching away from Firefox. The telemetry thing seems totally overblown. The ads are absolutely minimal. It's great software.
It's been a steady exodus since less than a year ago when they removed the bit from their TOS about never selling your personal data and promising to protect your privacy.
I believe the recent surge has been the forced integration of AI features which are on by default (arguments were made to at least make them opt-in and not opt-out). Such features compromise privacy and security.
They're actively doing everything they can to monitize the consumer and going against their supposed stance as the 'privacy focused' browser.
Noting their blog response: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/firefox/update-on-terms-of-use/
Essentially, they claim to still not be monetizing the consumer. I can find no reporting claiming that they have monetized any consumer, and it's been almost a year.
You're right, I probably should have phrased that as 'they appear to be doing everything they can to monetize the consumer...'
Actions speak louder than words and the action of modifying their TOU to remove the following really struck a nerve:
"Does Firefox sell your personal data? Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. That's a promise."
Removing this statement feels motivated by more than the excuses they're giving - it feels like a betrayal. Subsequently shoe-horning in AI features doesn't help reverse this sentiment, it only emboldens it.
To each their own, but Mozilla clearly doesn't care about being 'the privacy focused browser' any longer or they wouldn't be taking their current actions.
load more comments
(1 replies)
A few things come to mind... for me the main reasons are:
- The new Mozilla CEO pushes AI into Firefox, and for now it seems that it will be an Opt-out procedure to get rid of it. As a software developer with a bit of technical knowledge about ML and LLMs I have a deep mistrust against C-Level types blabbering on about AI as our lord and savior.
- Mozilla is funded heavily by Google. Almost 85% of Mozilla's funds come from Search engine deals with Google. Google itself is one of the top 3 megacorps when it comes to surveillance capitalism, erosion of privacy and enshittification. You guessed it, that's not very trustworthy to me either.
- There are more reasons, but I'm not a fucking wikipedia. Look it up if you really want to know.
Also I think it is good to have a choice, especially in the browser market where Chrome, Edge (MS-flavoured Chrome) and Firefox are the only viable mainstream choices for most people. If you're happy with Firefox, good for you. But there are valid reasons not to be.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I just like the added privacy that privacy focused browsers...focus on. Not that deep really.
load more comments
(11 replies)
Yep, this fork is the one I use frequently and now that Mozilla has become a pro-AI-slop company, fuck the stock Firefox browser it is now complete and utter absolute dogshit.
Anyone still using the stock Firefox browser and still complains about other things violating their privacy are premium morons.
Cannot say this enough fuck the corrupt Mozilla Corp paid and essentially owned by Google, with a Rentier CEO
load more comments
(10 replies)
...until they gain in popularity.
Then there will be another fork. I've been using LibreWolf for several months now and so far it's been pretty neat. But of course, that's a sample size of 1 person.
I've been using it for much longer, at least 1 or 2 years, I forgot. Pretty neat, and makes us a sample of 2.
I'm a third! Using fennec on android also good
I'm more of an IronFox person on mobile
Also an IronFox mobile enjoyer. No matter which fork, I don't know how I coped without having a functioning adblock on mobile before.
Fourth!
Been using Librewolf for a couple of years now across Linux and macOS and have no issues with it. Waterfox on my phone though.
Fifth sample and v happy about it
Moved recently. Likes it.
You think LibreWolf will sell out?
I think that's unlikely.
It's a soft fork as in it will never stand alone without updates from mozilla.
Pretty much just some config files and a build script that enables / disables flags for whatever features.
There are loads of other similar projects and many of them share the patches / configurations between them.
I don't think there's really much for them to monetise, honestly. Like their following is built on not being mozilla, if they become mozilla-lite then any number of other existing projects could fill their gap.
It's much more likely that Firefox UX just continues to deteriorate, maybe they will capitulate on Googles next attempt to force ads on everyone, maybe google will not renew their next revenue agreement.
Firefox and all it's soft forks are on a trajectory towards doom. Ladybird is our only hope, and it's not much of a hope IMO.
Another privacy-focused Firefox alternative is Phoenix, which prioritizes security, freedom, and usability.
Unlike Librewolf - which sometimes lags behind Firefox’s release cycle due to its small development team (consider supporting them!) -Phoenix operates as an overlay on your existing Firefox installation.
Key limitation: Phoenix does not support DRM-protected video, so streaming services are inaccessible.
view more: next ›