What's next for Firefox on Linux?

15th Sep 2010 | 09:31

What's next for Firefox on Linux?

The darling of free software is facing a threat from a former ally

The end of Firefox's honeymoon period

Firefox is the open source project your non-open source friends are most likely to have heard of. It's also the one they're most likely to have used. In fact, Firefox has brought open source into the light of mainstream attention, getting coverage alongside all the usual technology and systems.

At the same time, using the language of one of its own slogans, it's enabled us to 'take back the web'. It's become such a dominant force online that site builders can no longer ignore Firefox rendering compatibility as they used to.

Internet Explorer is no longer the only browser, and this means people finally have access to an unabridged version of the web on their desktops. But after some spectacular initial success, the Firefox mission has stalled.

Growth over the last year has been static, and things are about to get worse. A competing open source browser has been able to go from zero to 7% market share, and doesn't show any sign of slowing down.

This is Google's Chrome, built with many of the same motivations that drove Firefox's development, and Google has a wide and comprehensive plan for Chrome's future.

However, it's not over for the browser yet. This is just the end of the honeymoon period. It now has to learn to adapt and evolve in an environment where it's not the only open source browser at the watering hole, and Internet Explorer is no longer just an easy target for destruction.

Where it began

Starting life in 2002, Firefox was the antidote to what its authors saw as the bloated, full-fat, feature creep of Mozilla's Application Suite. Mozilla inherited a lot of its appearance and aesthetic from close ally Netscape, a company that needed to monetise the browser and satisfy a different community.

As a result, it found it very difficult to assert its own independence. Frustrated, Blake Ross and David Hyatt copied Mozilla and pruned functionality, while a colleague, Ben Goodger, took what he saw as a dysfunctional user interface and turned it into the minimal theme that helped make Firefox Phoenix 1.0 such a success.

Phoenix 1.0

The release notes proclaimed, "Phoenix is not your father's Mozilla browser. It's a lean and fast browser that doesn't skimp on features." Phoenix was enough of a success that Mozilla decided to push the browser forward as an official project. The next 18 months followed a "long, difficult, all-consuming road," according to Goodger, but finally, on November 9 2004, Firefox 1.0 was released, and the world rejoiced.


Firefox's growth is as much thanks to its circumstance as it is to its features and foresight. During those early years, it was able to take advantage of Microsoft's poor Internet Explorer security record, as well as its reticence in updating the browser.

This led Firefox on a trajectory that now gives it almost a third of the browser market, and nearly all of it at the expense of various versions of Internet Explorer. Firefox has helped bring tabbed browsing, extensions, anti-phishing protection and genuine security to everyone.

But more importantly, it's allowed non-technical, non-Linux people understand what open source software is and what it can do. Firefox is free for all users, and works on a massive variety of platforms.


Firefox used to enjoy an excellent relationship with Google, thanks to the fact that about 90% of Mozilla's revenue is generated from Google being the browser's default search engine. But the pairing became strained when Google announced plans to create its own open source browser and released the first version for Windows in September 2008.

What's interesting about Chrome is that there are two versions of it. It's the official Google product and is only available as a binary. But because it relies on so many free software libraries – including WebKit, Portable Runtime and SQLite – Google also releases the source code under a project it calls Chromium.

When built, this is identical to Chrome, with a few exceptions: the logo's different, there's no auto-updater and no usage statistics are sent to Google.

Chrome sent out shockwaves because it's essentially done a Firefox, reinventing a minimal interface in the face of feature creep. It's fast, light and very compatible with the vast majority of websites. Combine this with its makers' insider knowledge on how to enhance Google application performance and searching, and it's easy to see why it's done so well.

By May 2010, Chrome had captured 7% of worldwide browser users. While usage data doesn't yet suggest these users have switched from Firefox, they're certainly potential Firefox users who've found a better alternative. It's winning back and keeping loyalty that's the challenge for Firefox.

Firefox vs Chrome

How are the two browsers different, and how are they the same?

To understand why two major browsers are competing for the same space, it's important to see how they differ.

The most cited reason for Chrome being chosen over Firefox is its speed. Since its release, it's not an exaggeration to say that Chrome has changed most users' expectations of how fast a browser can feel.

This is, in part, because websites are becoming a lot more complicated, filling every available crevice with advanced features, and because most other web browsers pre-date the web 2.0 revolution that's taken so many of our desktop-bound applications into the cloud.


Realising that most of this online interaction was through JavaScript, the Chrome development team went all-out to make its JavaScript performance revolutionary. In doing so, they upgraded the user experience for every site based on JavaScript code.

Google obviously had a vested interest – many of its own feature-rich cloud applications rely heavily on the language to provide functionality. But then, so does the rest of the web. There's hardly a site left that doesn't add some usability logic through a few lines of JavaScript code.

The first version of Chrome caused a storm when it was revealed to be almost twice as fast as Firefox 3.0.1 in the SunSpider JavaScript benchmark, and 35 times faster than Internet Explorer 7.

This was all thanks to its V8 JavaScript engine, and while benchmarks are always contentious because they place unrealistic loads on browsers, most people could feel the difference when they used Chrome. SunSpider is an interesting attempt to mimic many different real-world scenarios, including decompression, encryption, general mathematics and sting handling.

Firefox developers responded with their own JavaScript optimisations, woven into a new engine called TraceMonkey. This added something called Trace Trees to the original SpiderMonkey engine, and improved performance by looking through the code for common paths, which were then precompiled.

V8, in comparison, attempts to pre-compile as much as possible by turning JavaScript into machine code rather than byte code when it's first executed, and handles the dynamic nature of JavaScript by patching the inline code through its runtime system. It's complicated, but the results speak for themselves.

We ran Firefox 3.6.3 and Chrome 5.0.370 against each other with SunSpider 0.9, and the gap between them has grown. Firefox completed the tests in 1,475.1ms , while Chrome took just 444.5ms – almost three times faster than the speed it attained on its debut.

However, Firefox also peformed much better than the original Chrome, which shows that users of both browsers have benefited from the competition to build a screaming JavaScript engine. They're both promising improvements for the future.

Desktop integration

Firefox is deeply ingrained with Linux sensibilities, and we often consider the project to be one of our own; one of the flagships we're proud to herald as an example of what open source can achieve.

As a result, there's never been any hesitation when it comes to including it as a default browser in all but the most ardent KDE-based distributions. This is because Firefox is built using GTK, the same programmers' toolkit used to create Gnome.

As a result, it can feel more integrated within the Gnome environment. Toolbars, menus, file requesters and themes will look the same without any modification. From KDE, the alterations that make Firefox look like a KDE application are purely cosmetic, and can feel a little rough around the edges. But not as rough as Chrome can sometimes seem.


As Chrome developer Ben Goodger explained, Google avoided cross-platform toolkits because applications that use them end up "speaking with a foreign accent". Instead, they used GTK for the user-interface. This is slightly ironic considering Goodger was the the lead developer for Firefox before taking to the helm of the Chrome project, but what he says makes sense.

Without the long-standing tradition of Linux use, Chrome's use of GTK has been able to forgo Gnome integration and strike out on its own. As a result, the final application looks different to both Gnome and KDE, and consequently alienates neither.

The theming engine is more adaptable to the look and feel of Gnome, reflected as one of the default theme choices, but Chrome can be coerced into a wide range of skins. Most noticeable, however, is the lack of top title bar. This is because Chrome has repositioned page tabs to the top of the window to make better use of the available real estate.

The top title bar usually gives you responsibility over your desktop's window manager, the part that controls where the windows go and how their borders are drawn. Chrome usurps the window manager by hiding it and pushing its own UI to the edge of the borderless window. This is why the browser's windows behave slightly differently to those of your native desktop and why, especially when compositing is enabled, it can be less stable than Firefox.

Linux versions of Chrome provide the option to re-instate the window border by selecting Use System Bar and Borders from the right-click menu that appears in the space after the tab view.

Security and stability

The most important feature for a browser is one that users don't see: security. A typical browser session might shuttle email, messages, banking and purchasing information, music, photos… all of which could be at risk if a leak springs up.

This is where open source really shines, with both Firefox and Chrome offering up their sources for scrutiny. As a result, they harbour very few surprises. But it's impossible to build perfection into so many lines of code, and both browsers will need updating as and when problems are discovered.

Firefox takes a wonderfully open approach to security by publishing a list of vulnerabilities, coloured according to their severity. In the first four months of this year, there were 25, of which 13 were judged critical. There's even a security blog which often responds to users' concerns and media reports.

Internet explorer 8

The Chromium security portal isn't quite as open, and you'll need to delve into the security forums to discover what's going on. This reflects a desire to keep vulnerabilities discreet, not one to hide what could be serious security risks.

The last stable update, released at the beginning of June, fixed nine serious vulnerabilities and two problems judged as medium risk, although most of these issues occurred within WebKit rather than the wider Chrome application.

There are also signs that both Mozilla and Google's development teams are happy to work together. It was Mozilla that discovered an important bug in Chrome's V8 engine, for example – no doubt in their quest to speed up their own JavaScript engine. And both projects offer bug-hunting incentives. Google and Mozilla offer $500 for every new security problem discovered, although Mozilla has a slight advantage: you also get a T-shirt.


When problems do slip through, it's Chrome's ability to shield other pages you have open that's won it supporters. If you have 10 tabs open in Firefox and you open a new page with a broken Flash animation, you lose everything. In Chrome, only the current tab stops responding.

This feature owes itself to Chrome's multi-process abilities, with which it keeps each tab running in an isolated process known as a sandbox. If something crashes within a sandbox, it doesn't affect the entire application. Instead, the tab view will be replaced with an 'Aw snap' message, and you can reload the page or give up.

This approach also has a positive effect on security, as it's almost impossible for a process running within a sandbox to access ones running within other sandboxes. When even Microsoft's Internet Explorer 8 includes window sandboxing, you may think Firefox had long ago assimilated one of Chrome's best features. But it hasn't, and currently has no plans to do so.

The best Firefox can manage is an offer to re-open the tabs you were using when you relaunch a crashed application. It does have its own 'sandbox' project, but it's the peer-review process, which has been running for more than three years, that ensures quality in add-ons installed through the official site.

However, there is some good news. With the release of Firefox 3.6.4, a version of the browser that was destined to be 3.7, plugins now run within their own processes, as they do in Chrome. This removes one of the most common causes for an application-wide crash, but it doesn't stretch to web pages and won't help you with a poorly written Flash application.

Embedded media

Listening to music and watching videos have become essential functions of your web browser. There are now many paid-for portals that let you stream movies, and many more for music.

Before HTML 5, a browser would be expected to launch an external application in such instances, spawning products such as RealPlayer. But HTML 5's specification embeds this ability in the rendering layer.

Embedded media

Firefox has been at the forefront of this revolution, embracing free formats such as Ogg Vorbis and Theora. You only need to click on an Ogg Vorbis music file, for example, and it will be embedded within a new window and played back automatically. Click on an MP3 file, by comparison, and Firefox will go back to asking which external application you'd like to use to open it.

This is a feature that's going to become increasingly important, with sites like Vimeo and YouTube already making the move away from Flash to HTML 5. But it's also going to be a particularly tough challenge for Firefox. As Mike Shaver, VP of Engineering at Mozilla puts it, "this is an important step in making video a first-class citizen of the modern web".

He then goes on to describe the specific problem facing Firefox in a future dominated by patent-encumbered codecs like the ones used by YouTube and Vimeo – H.264.

"For Mozilla, H.264 is not currently a suitable technology choice. In many countries, it is a patented technology, meaning that it is illegal to use without paying licence fees to the MPEG-LA. Without such a licence, it is not legal to use or distribute software that produces or consumes H.264- encoded content. Indeed, even distributing H.264 content over the internet or broadcasting it over the airwaves requires the consent of the MPEG-LA, and the current fee exemption for free-to-the-viewer internet delivery is only in effect until the end of 2010." [This has since been extended to 2016.]

The solution is to use a truly open format, and that means either Google's WebM or the often-criticised Ogg Theora. WebM seems to have momentum, with Chrome, Firefox and IE9 pledging support, but will it grow into a position where H.264 support becomes a non-issue?

Regardless, WebM is going to be a big part of Firefox 4, and Mozilla hacker Robert O'Callahan announced its inclusion after Google gave WebM a new licence to remove ambiguity and decouple copyright patents in the licence's language.

If WebM happens, Firefox will be in the best-possible position. If not, Linux users will still have to rely on additional packages to online content. But it's also a chance for greater collaboration.

As Michael Shaver wrote recently: "I very much believe that Google (both the Chrome and YouTube teams), Vimeo and many others share our desire to have a web with full-featured, high-performance, unencumbered, natively-integrated video, and I very much look forward to us all working – together and separately – towards that end."

Killer feature

Despite all this talk of function and the future, there's one aspect of Firefox that Chrome can't compete with: freedom. It's this that's likely to be a foundation of Mozilla's future growth.

There's little doubt that Google developed Chrome to satisfy its own agenda. With its own operating system just around the corner and a serious foothold in the mobile market, it needed its own portal to the online world, one that could present Google's applications and tools in the best light.

Firefox doesn't have those restraints. It's a browser that's been developed to bring the web to as many people as possible. As stated on its own web page, Firefox has a mission to "promote openness, innovation and opportunity on the web". This means it should always put users first, no matter what temptations are placed at its feet.

While Chrome is based on open source, it's a long way from being as open as Firefox. Mitchell Baker, Chair of the Mozilla Foundation, said it best at the end of April, when she discovered a botanical garden she was interested in seeing wasn't a tourist honeypot but a non-profit organisation like Mozilla.

"Non-profit organisations can make mistakes. They can be boring and ineffective just like anything else. But the chance that the whole thing was just something dumb designed to get people there to extract money felt much, much lower." It's the same for Mozilla.

The future of Firefox

The Firefox team has a lot to think about, and they don't have much time. Firefox 4 is due in November, and many of the plans for it were outlined in May in a web presentation by Mike Beltzner, Firefox's director. He asked, firstly, who uses the browser?

Apparently, there's a split between early adopters, mainstream users and developers, and the new version of the browser has to cater for them all equally. It was no surprise that the first word in the plan was 'fast'.

What was interesting was that there wasn't an all-out race for benchmark dominance; it was more to do with what the user sees. Beltzner gave an example of how a progress meter's design might affect how speed is perceived.

Firefox 4

As a result, Firefox 4 will use a sleek theme. Early mock-ups look very like Chrome. Reading the details, there'll be no modal dialogues, updates will occur in the background, there'll be no startup interruptions and add-ons won't need a restart.

Security is also important. There's going to be a permissions manager that will show you your relationship with a site. So far, the manager shows a list of websites, with a list of permissions that correspond to a site's capabilities. You could choose to disable geolocation data, for example, or customise pop-up blocks.

But while privacy may be an issue for data you don't explicitly share, Firefox 4 is going to have a more social aspect, with features designed to help you share your favourite websites and even open tabs.


There's been a lot of work on the HTML 5 rendering layer, and multi-touch gestures sound exciting. There's also been progress on animation with CSS 3 transitions, along with a new remote JavaScript debugger, profile manager and WebGL – all part of Mozilla's new web standard to bring interactive 3D graphics to web pages, as tried by VRML.

As well as the rhetoric about the interface inferring speed, JavaScript is being overhauled. The new engine is called JaegerMonkey, and attempts to improve some of SpiderMonkey's clever trace routines with simpler, more efficient codes that compile entire subroutines without over-analysis. This is perfect for cases in which trace routines don't work because an application isn't repetitive enough.

At the end of May, David Mandelin, a Mozilla programmer responsible for JavaScript development, announced that JaegerMonkey was at the half-way point. Results indicate that it's doubled its efficiency, although benchmarks say it's still slower than Google's V8 and Apple's Nitro.

But speed isn't just about UI and JavaScript. Mozilla's asked the Reddit community for their multi-minute launch profiles to improve speed and, hopefully, image.


The real test is how Firefox is going to adapt to a market that's being dominated by embedded and locked-down devices that won't necessarily make things easy for people who want to use it.

Google's Chrome OS is a prime example. It's a complete operating system that's built around Chrome. There's a similar situation in the mobile market. Mozilla ruled itself out of the iPhone, stating that Apple made it too hard to create a competing browser, and Apple hasn't relented on its no browsers rule, other than to allow Opera.

Android's a different story, and is becoming the only real iPhone competitor. As a result, Mozilla's been trying to create a mobile version of its browser. It released an early-Alpha version for Android, Fennec, at the end of April, which had most of the desktop features, including add-on support. But it's clear that there's a lot of work to do.

Regardless of plans, most users want to know how Firefox is going to fare against Chrome. Mozilla is pragmatic. It wants to boost co-operation and play down conflict. Beltzner said, "We watch our competitors and our competitors watch us, and we are in it to win it."

Mozilla has the skill, financing and community to succeed. But it hasn't been in this position before; for years, Firefox has been the standard open source browser. But competition is good. If Mozilla really wants to win, that makes us all beneficiaries in a contest that may transform Linux.


First published in Linux Format Issue 135

Liked this? Then check out 8 of the best web browsers for Linux

Sign up for TechRadar's free Weird Week in Tech newsletter
Get the oddest tech stories of the week, plus the most popular news and reviews delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up at http://www.techradar.com/register

Follow TechRadar on Twitter * Find us on Facebook

Linux Firefox Chrome Mozilla Google open source
Share this Article

Most Popular

Edition: UK
TopView classic version