Chrome is spyware, Edge is spyware, Brave has too many crypto sponsor for my liking, Firefox is going off a cliff, Vivaldi is the definition of bloat.
The web browser ecosystem is frankly appalling, and it's so complicated it's impossible for new competitors to appear and improve the status quo. We just have to put up with it, and I am furious Mozilla, one of the shining beacons on that landscape, now is sitting idle redesigning the UI just to justify their existence.
I use Edge, with custom scripts to turn off as much phoning home as possible, and it's still bad.
Notice how Brave had the weakest reasoning. A little talking point about crypto pushes it away, even though it's the only browser actually taking privacy seriously, not just as a marketing technique. Safari comes in second, but Apple actively cripples it due to the threat of PWA breaking the walled garden.
You have to opt-in to Brave marketing like you mentioned. It allows people to earn BAT if they want to, so they can tip site owners. Better than ads right? The only other complaint is the home screen where you can buy crypto and they get an affiliate payout, which is how they make money. That can be disabled and have you seen the default home screen of Edge? Its news is just ads and paid campaigns.
Brave also supports more protocols like IPFS, Web torrent, and Tor, its telling other browsers don't.
The power of propaganda is strong. The GP uses Edge that he knows is spyware and doesn't even consider Brave because one little talking point that simply gets summed up as "crypto".
Was the affiliation links inserted in the browser opt-in? Was the unethical business model to show custom ads in place of existing ones an accident? Or the crappy marketing campaign to lure content creators into their ecosystem by playing on ambiguous terms?
I own cryptos, I like cryptos, but the team behind Brave has proven to be scammy and unethical.
>I believe it was a mistake that it wasn't, and it was quickly made opt-in.
Sure it wasn't. And if you think having Mozilla getting paid for their default search worse than trying to profit off affiliate marketing, we really have different views on the world.
>As far as I know that's a lie, did they ever replace ads with blocked ads? Brave ads are text notifications, not banner ads.
That's still hypocrite. You block off every ads on the internet, but still display your own. Your business model is still based on the "watchtime" but you forbid actual content creators to benefit from it. It was the same thing with adblock plus. Having a stance against ads is one thing, relying on them while blocking the whole internet of their revenue is a dick move.
>Which marketing campaign, how are they luring, how are terms ambiguous, please expand.
They accept donations for creators without their consent. It is now clear on the module when a creator has no account yet to receive the tips but at launch it wasn't the case. They lured users into donating and used this money to contact creators and try to leverage the generosity of their community to bring them on board. That's quite a low growth hacking tactic.
Don't worry about my consistency, I think I'm alright.
> Sure it wasn't. And if you think having Mozilla getting paid for their default search worse than trying to profit off affiliate marketing, we really have different views on the world.
Google paying Mozilla for search engine referrals is the definition of affiliate marketing. And you can choose to believe it was some plot to sneak through after they reversed it, it's unfounded. Mozilla still doesn't inform the user of their affiliate deal.
> That's still hypocrite. You block off every ads on the internet, but still display your own. Your business model is still based on the "watchtime" but you forbid actual content creators to benefit from it. It was the same thing with adblock plus. Having a stance against ads is one thing, relying on them while blocking the whole internet of their revenue is a dick move.
That's a different accusation after you tried to state your lie. Brave has an opt-in text notification rewards program.
It's common to run ad blockers in other browsers because ads have become so intrusive. Yes you should subscribe, donate, etc. if you frequent a website, but you shouldn't have to view ads against your will.
Brave has that adblocking built in for the user foremost. The rewards network is to allow those who need to block ads to donate to the website owner instead. When you use FireFox and uBlock, you don't have the option if that site owner doesn't have a PayPal etc.
> They accept donations for creators without their consent. It is now clear on the module when a creator has no account yet to receive the tips but at launch it wasn't the case. They lured users into donating and used this money to contact creators and try to leverage the generosity of their community to bring them on board. That's quite a low growth hacking tactic.
> They accept donations for creators without their consent.
If they don't create a wallet and accept the funds are returned to the donor, Brave doesn't keep it.
That's not referrals and not affiliate marketing, get your definition straight.
When you hear hoofs, think horse, not Zebra. Where have you been the last decades on the internet to rather think it was a "mistake" that could have given them millions of $ instead of a shady move?
I didn't lie once, but I guess you're too worked up on the subject for some reason to see it clearly. By the way, who's using a word salad now? No matter in which order you put it, the system is there. They profit off ads by preventing everyone else do to it, even if they also are unintrusive. You can't seriously pretend to care about an ad-free internet when it's your business model...
The controversy with donations came when they shipped the feature. There was no mention at all that the creator or the website was not affiliated with Brave. Again, shady AF. The system is now way more transparent, but the facts are there. And I personally don't appreciate an op-out system where creators have to willingly deactivate the feature to not be associated with a third-party private entity collecting money in their name.
>I generally do not connect to web sites from my own machine, aside from a few sites I have some special relationship with. I usually fetch web pages from other sites by sending mail to a program (see https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/womb/hacks.git) that fetches them, much like wget, and then mails them back to me. Then I look at them using a web browser, unless it is easy to see the text in the HTML page directly. I usually try lynx first, then a graphical browser if the page needs it (using konqueror, which won't fetch from other sites in such a situation).
I feel like a lot of companies stopped testing for Firefox and those issues get attributed to Mozilla (not that some performance issues aren't their fault, but I've definitely encountered issues that get attributed to Mozilla but are failures to test for a different rendering engine).
I use Safari or Edge as a fallback if I run into issues. Google seems to spend a lot of time specifically optimizing their apps (gmail, meet) for Chrome... so I tend to keep Chrome around specifically for those cases. I still find that Edge and Safari have more issues than Firefox.
Yep, it's not Mozilla's fault many websites don't offer support for it sadly. But it's still frustrating to never be sure and always having to double check with a Chrome if it's because of Firefox or because of the website.
Do you think those optimizations are only in Chrome or also in Chromium? I'd expect only Chrome but...
So use Firefox where it works, and Chrome where Firefox doesn't work for you. There's a little Firefox extension called "Open with..." which makes it really quick and easy to open a tab or link with another browser.
If the problem is that you don't have enough memory to comfortably use two browsers at once, then... well, then that's your real problem. Get more more RAM.
As for Firefox, although I haven't always been happy with the changes Mozilla has forced on their users, overall it's still the best browser out there, and when it comes to giving you the tools to preserve your privacy specifically it's worlds ahead of the alternatives... although it does take some awareness and effort on part of the user but that's unavoidable nowadays.
multiple browsers are the way to go. I had all my eggs in the chrome basket until their login fiasco, but hit limitations with Firefox. I now configure Firefox and brave with the same extensions and use the both equally. using onetab makes it easy to migrate sessions from one browser to the next.
Firefox is my primary browser too and use Brave as the secondary, and thus far it's pretty much exactly like Chrome/Chromium.
Many bring up the cryptocurrency relation and I do get that (And other than the world-view differences, they've also had some mishaps like injecting referral codes to URLs, but hopefully they have learned from these). But given that both Google and Microsoft are interested in your personal data then Brave does seem to be a better choice than them.
I used Pale Moon https://www.palemoon.org/ for several years and it was OK. I went back to Firefox because of some compatibility issues. Firefox needs some configuration in Settings and about:config , for example I turn off media.autoplay, Pdfjs, webassembly, etc, but YMMV. about:config is not available in standard FF mobile, only in FF Nightly. uBlock Origin plugin is essential, and I use Noscript for safety and speed, also Privacy Badger, etc. FF became really annoying, yes, but at least it's still possible to configure it, unlike most other browsers.
I use Vivaldi, the performance issues are news to me and it seems pretty good. Though the latest update it keeps crashing when I open file selections, need to figure out what’s going on there. Before that it was very stable for me. I wouldn’t want to give up its tab management now though, especially its ability to do side by side/tiled groups.
Google Meet perf really is terrible though. Makes me wonder if the entire idea of in-browser video is misbegotten.
Slowly but surely, I've noticed my general exasperation with browser apps growing in the last few years. Between getting into mobile development, better sandboxing, easy app store-based distribution, much better isolation between apps, and learning C++ (from working in robotics) it feels it's time to get back to writing high-performance native code that doesn't involve the ridiculous tradeoffs the modern browser requires (latency, memory use, etc). I think this might be a trend we see more of in the next decade.
The point of the Rewards system isn't to make users bank. It's to give users stuff they can give creators, so they don't get fucked as badly by the adblockalypse. Individual users aren't terribly valuable, ads make money due to sheer mass.
On desktop, it's still Firefox as #1 for me, Edge as #2, and everything else is extremely distant 3rd, except things I might test out to see if they have a use for me.
I know the idea of "gaming browser" is instantly cringeworthy, but I actually like some things in Opera GX. Having a built-in bandwidth limiter is awesome when I'm downloading large files and don't want them to completely take over my bandwidth. There are some good ideas in lots of lesser-used browsers, like this, but I never see these features bubble up to the big ones like FF/Edge.
Ad-blocking (and browser capability which supports content blocking) is a high priority for me (no I will not debate this on moral/ethical grounds- I refuse to see ads, end of story).
So, Chrome's manifest v3 among other poor choices by Google mean I will 100% stay away from Chrome- and I only use Chrome-based browsers when I absolutely must.
That said, I don't think these days I use anything that requires Chrome/Edge (thankfully). So I pretty much can avoid them completely.
I just downloaded Edge based on some replies in here (though Safari is my daily driver, Firefox is my dev browser, Brave is my usual video conferencing browser but is pretty terrible at it) and boy does it take a long time to turn off all the crapware that comes with it. And even when you do, it comes back ten minutes later. I'm super impressed that Microsoft have managed to faithfully recreate the Windows experience for Mac users who might be tempted to switch!
I switched from Firefox to Vivaldi. Yes, Vivaldi. There are some folks here complaining it has a lot of bloat and while that's true, I don't care. I like it. Why?
* Based on Chrome. Unfortunately there's a lot of truth to the statement that "Chrome is the new IE", from the standpoint that modern sites are optimized (and tested) to run on Chrome.
* The sidebar. Downloads, bookmarks, etc. are quickly available in a simple pull-out.
* Speed Dial. Sounded corny when I first installed Vivaldi, now I love it. YMMV.
* Tab Stacking. If you're like me and have lots of tabs open, this is a great feature.
* Notes. Tracking notes on a page is an awesome feature!
People say Vivaldi is slow, but I haven't noticed it being slow to render sites - it's slow to launch. How often do you launch your browser though? At least for me the browser is one of the few always-running programs I run. There is a performance issue I've noticed in making YT videos run full-screen - there's a very noticeable lag especially if you have several tabs open. So far that hasn't been enough to outweigh the positives.
FWIW I use google meet with Firefox all the time with no issues. The only annoying thing is that it won’t let you blur the background. (They allowed this feature on FF for one glorious week but then took it away)
Even my coworkers who use chrome prefer zoom though, so we’ve been switching more and more meetings to zoom.
It's not. They do the usual of defaulting to a not privacy friendly search engine and having search suggestions on, but Edge's session id is hardware-based and persists across browser reboots. Their new tab page also connects to two million different things.
Microsoft does run its own sync infrastructure, but Edge doesn't provide end to end encryption for all classes of data.
If you want a privacy friendly Chromium fork, I'd go with Vivaldi or Brave. Both run their own sync infrastructure, and like Mozilla's theirs are end to end encrypted by default. They have their own built-in adblockers and prefer privacy-friendly search engines. Brave Shields even does the CNAME uncloaking that makes uBlock Origin better on Firefox. And it won't get fucked by Manifest v3.
I probably don't need to advertise the joys of adblock on mobile, or Brave having a funny little toggle called "Background video playback" (read: "Fuck YouTube").
They're doing both. They do some amazing UI design that's normie friendly but powerful, but also have weird things like couponing and Pinterest integrations. Not nearly enough basic privacy features, though. Lack of end to end encrypted sync is yikes.
I often see comments on HN complaining about Firefox being poorly supported by some sites. I honestly cannot remember the last time I experienced any support issues with it. Are these generally more niche sites and are we talking misaligned text or a completely broken page?
Yeah this is why monopolies are bad. Your only real options are chromium based stuff, or safari. if you are going the chromium route, id go with ungoogled chromium: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium . Its really the only version of chromium I think is good, and its got the google tracking stuff removed for the most part.
Nyxt is web engine agnostic. We utilize a minimal API to interface to any web engine. This makes us flexible and resilient to changes in the web landscape. Currently, we support WebKit and WebEngine (Blink).
So in theory, you could switch between web engines. I don't know if you can do that on demand or not. It does seem like a cool project, so I will likely try it out.
Given that a browser is currently harder to implement than an operating system (or so goes the saying), there are a few options:
- forego the web, embrace other protocols. From what I understand this seems to be the reasoning behind Gemini.
- forego parts of the web, for example by using browsers whit limited functionalities (Dillo, Lynx, etc.)
Regarding point 2, I always let them know (if I care enough). If I don't care, I don't visit their site - if they haven't bothered to make sure it works with FF, there are likely to have other problems.