I'm with diomus here: Choice is important and sharpens the appetite on both sides to provide a good product.
I intend, assuming that it turns out to be a reasonable product, to buy Oregano3 and I've indicated so to Richard. My aspirations would be for a capable, RISC OS interface browser with some useful plug-ins, not least a more capable Flash.
I expect Firefox to grow into a capable and usable browser too though I'm open-minded on how RISC OS compliant it will be and expect it to be less well endowed with plug-ins.
However, that's just my uninformed opinion. What's more important is that we have two strings to this (IMHO) vital bow for our platform. I will be glad to use both as I currently use Oregano2 and Webster XL. I'm prepared to pay for both too, though (through Chocky's generosity) one does not *have* to pay for Firefox.
In terms of a waste of resources, either browser could represent such given the existence of the other. However, both actually leverage a huge (relatively) amount of pre-existing work so neither is comparable to what could be achieved by their respective teams if they did something completely different. I guess that neither team would be (for different reasons) so willing to do something different either.
Let's enjoy the choice, not start another version of the editor wars!