this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
971 points (84.3% liked)
Firefox
17301 readers
62 users here now
A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No. Couldn't care less what the founder did or didn't do. We need as many non-Google browsers as possible. The problem with Brave is that it is a chromium browser.
I'd say being chromium makes it a Google browser...
I mean, does that mean Edge is a Google browser, too?
Chromium is open-source. Even if Google adds something malicious to the source code (such as that Web Environment Integrity stuff), it can be removed by someone else creating their own browser based on Chromium. That's the very definition of open-source.
Related side-note: Lemmy itself is open-source, too. If the creator of Lemmy added something to the software that someone running an instance didn't agree with, they could simply fork the original software and remove the unwanted addition. Some people do disagree with that person's views, and yet they're still here. Many of them joined .world and other instances instead of .ml because they disagreed with the creator's views.
While Google, the creator of Chromium, isn't a good company for the consumer, I personally think Chromium itself isn't a bad idea. It's just that Google and some other companies modify it for their own means, and those means aren't always consumer-friendly.
All that to say: while the company that originally created Chromium is bad, the software isn't. And while some of the companies and people using that software are bad (including Brave, IMO), some of them are looking out for their users' interests, and those forks of Chromium are generally ok. (You should still actually do research and not pick a fork because the company developing it said it's okay, though. Take a look at what others are saying and verify it.)
Yes.
Only to the extent that websites are built for chromium compatibility, due to its monopoly on the internet. It's great software because it's the most popular software so all other smaller providers that serve that software have to focus their resources into ensuring compatibility. Chromium(Blink) itself is pretty mid, and definitely equal to WebKit or Gecko, not better or significantly worse.
Brave works for what I need it to do. I don't like lending credence to bigots(secret or otherwise) but if someone is gonna say "don't use this browser" they need to list a replacement that has the same functionality. And it can't be "just use duckduckgo" because we all fucking have that on our phones and none of us can use it as our primary browser and we all know exactly why. 😒
What's wrong with Firefox?
Nothing. I use it all the time.
A little slower, but nothing. Mullvad is pretty good. A mix of Firefox and Tor.
From Privacy Guides. Firefox on desktop though!
For me personally, the one and only reason I don't main Firefox is because it doesn't work with Chromecast and I use that a LOT. I would switch to FF tomorrow if I could easily and reliably cast with it.
getting addicted to proprietary software is a terrible idea. this is just the first of many losses you will have if you stick to that tech
It works almost exactly the same as Chrome.
It has a monopoly on being non-Chromium based
Chromium is the browser monopoly.
Woosh
Why?
As far as I'm aware, the ddg browser collects data and they sell it to Microsoft. The search by itself is fine though.
Do you have a source for the claim that DuckDuckGo browser is selling user data to Microsoft?
You might be referring to the time when the DuckDuckGo browser was blocking all known trackers except Microsoft trackers. After that information was made public and users complained, DuckDuckGo was able to renegotiate its agreement with Microsoft so that it can block their trackers.
Furthermore, DuckDuckGo now publish their blocklist on GitHub.
Source: https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/05/duckduckgo-microsoft-tracking-scripts
So this privacy issue has been rectified now. But even if it hadn’t, failing to block Microsoft trackers isn’t the same as collecting data and selling it to Microsoft.
But if you are aware of DDG browser selling data to Microsoft, please share a source.
Really? I thought that used Bing search as backend but not that they sell your data
No, you have it right. That person is just conflating the controversy over their agreement with Microsoft as "ThEY're sELLiNg yOuR DaTa". 🙄
In fact. Mozilla rely more in Google. If i wasn't mistaken 90% of their money came from Google and they rely Google safebrowsing wherein it exposes your IP to Google
no one wants to secure their web render so they'll always use whatever is native to the platform.
on windows that's chromium. on macos that's webkit.
What does this even mean. Chromium or Webkit are not "native" to an OS. OSs don't magically include browser engines, its not a critical component of an OS either.
Most OSs do come with browsers preinstalled, but they are programs just like any other. You can remove Safari from macOS (albeit its pretty hard because root is read only and signed), you can remove Edge from Windows. In my desktop with Windows 10 the only browser I have is Firefox (not even Edge), does that make Gecko the "native" browser engine?
If anything, the native browser engine for Windows would be MSHTML from Internet Explorer.
you're overthinking the word native.
You're still not clarifying what you mean.
https://lemmy.ml/comment/3235821
So what is "native to the platform" according to your definition?
https://lemmy.ml/comment/3235821
By your definition. If I bought a phone and Facebook came pre-installed it means that Facebook is native to my phone?
Yes. That's exactly what his definition means.
I can kinda appreciate what he's trying to say, but I think "default" might be a better word than "native", but I'm not an expert.
What?
@gingernate
@pivot_root
How do you read and post from lemmy.world?
I use sync for lemmy
what's your confusion
Chromium isn't native to Windows. iOS is the only OS (I'm aware of) where browsers are forced to use a specific engine, but even that will be changing
you're overthinking the word native.
No, I'm not. Chromium doesn't exist in Windows unless you install a program that includes it. Chromium web engine is "native" to the chromium web browser, not to any OS (except maybe ChromeOS). As espi mentioned, Internet explorer's mshtml is the only engine "native" to Windows. Just look at the Opera browser, they changed web engines from Presto to chromium; that's not using "what's native to the platform" (Opera works across all OS's with chromium, except for iOS for the restriction I mentioned before), it's using what the developers/company want to use to render their pages. Nothing in Windows itself provides any of the chromium engine "pieces"
This was true until Edge transitioned to Chromium. Now the natively installed browser in Windows is Chromium based.
careful, you used the word native.
Firefox users apparently get triggered by it.
Because what you claim is wrong.
Microsoft programs that need a web rendering engine use MSHTML, not Chromium. MSHTML is baked into the operating system.
You can completely delete Edge from your computer and Windows will keep working fine.
Edge is using EMET for memory protections.
Chrome has EMET disabled because it's own memory protections conflict and it just won't execute.
When you're make a web view for Windows you're either bringing a long your own rendering or using Edge because it's included.
No one wants to secure their own rendering which is why they all use whatever is already there which is EMET which is a pita to test so they just go with Edge.
native is just jargon for "what is already there."
EMET? The framework that was end-of-lifed in 2018? I'd bloody well hope Chrome doesn't use something that isn't supported anymore.
Chrome's sandboxing is weird and prone to breaking, but at least it isn't stuck relying entirely on a kernel framework exclusive to an OS that people are extremely hesitant to keep up-to-date.