Web Browser Thread

This is a thread dedicated to discussing web browsers - from addons to security and engines, your predictions about the market share, customizations, etc. >Is my browser a botnet? Short answer: Yes, everything is a botnet. Long answer: check out the Online Spyware Watchdog: https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/browsers.html >So what should I use? ungoogled-chromium or IceCat I'll start with an interesting phenomenon I discovered when using Firefox or Icecat on computers with Ryzen processors. My computer weirdly crashed when using IceCat on GNU/Linux - no trace in logs, happened about 3 times a day, it just freezed or rebooted, memtests showed no errors. I observed similar bevahior on my mom's laptop, also with Ryzen, but on Windows 10. I decided to try ungoogled chromium to check whether this is really Firefox and I haven't experienced any crashes since then. The same thing on my mom's computer - using Edge instead of Firefox stops the crashes. Can you propose a good explanation of these crashes? Have you experienced something similar? It happens independently on different operating systems and machines, the only things common are Firefox and Ryzen. I have two explanations: first - it's just a coincidence and a bug in AMD microcode, second - someone the big G paid AMD to introduce this "bug" on purpose to kill Firefox.

Because you're not running Windows 98, Firefox can't do anything in normal operation to freeze or crash your system. If the problem really was present and really did stop, the video driver is a likely candidate. >Long answer: check out the Online Spyware Watchdog: Autistic and out of date. >someone the big G paid AMD to introduce this "bug" on purpose to kill Firefox. This is stupid. You should feel stupid.

>>32463 >Because you're not running Windows 98, Firefox can't do anything in normal operation to freeze or crash your system. Then explain the crashes on two different machines and two different OSes. >If the problem really was present and really did stop, the video driver is a likely candidate. It might be that - both machines run radeon GPUs, but the weirdness remains, as only Firefox triggers the problem - no other browser, not a game using 3D, but Firefox. >Autistic and out of date. Doesn't seem like a valid argument. >This is stupid. You should feel stupid. Can you elaborate? What makes it so unlikely in your opinion? Hardware manufacturers often colaborate with their business partners to kill off competition, like hardware companies making drivers only for Windows or making obsolete drivers for the Linux kernel on purpose.

>>32462 >>Is my browser a botnet? >Short answer: Yes, everything is a botnet. Wrong, even on Spyware Watchdog's website there are browsers that are marked as "not spyware/botnet". Although I guess it depends on the definition of "botnet" >Long answer: check out the Online Spyware Watchdog: >https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/browsers.html Damn, someone should edit in that there's a third-party uMatrix implementation (https://gitlab.com/jgkamat/jmatrix) for Qutebrowser and it works pretty well, at least the basic features are exactly the same. After that, I think the rating should go up to Good, at least.

>>32462 >someone the big G paid AMD to introduce this "bug" on purpose to kill Firefox Normally this sort of thing is because the dominance of one platform (in this case Chrome and its engine) means that they don't properly test and develop on alternatives. This is why you should ignore the soykafty spyware site and not use Ungoogled Chromium and instead use a Firefox derivative (or just FF itself). Handing over even more control of webstandards to Google will just make it even easier for them to make the web even soykaftier.

>>32465 >Wrong, even on Spyware Watchdog's website ... That was supposed to be a joke. >Qutebrowser How is the performance, considering it uses Python for some things?

>>32466 >This is why you should ignore the soykafty spyware site and not use Ungoogled Chromium and instead use a Firefox derivative (or just FF itself). I can either use Ungoogled Chromium or a Firefox derivative and experience crashes over 3 times a day. It's not like I'm a big fan of Chromium and Google's monopoly, but I need a functioning browser to do work and soykafpost >Handing over even more control of webstandards to Google will just make it even easier for them to make the web even soykaftier. I lost all hope for the web standards. It's too late already. The bloat must reach critical mass and explode, so a new Internet can grow on its corpse.

>>32468 >The bloat must reach critical mass and explode Accelerationism doesn't work, its just a lie we tell ourselves to feel better about the collapse of things we once loved. The only hope is either Firefox and its derivatives making a comeback or one of the spineless anti-trust enforcement agencies to actually do something about google but that would probably do nothing to stop how corporate web standards have become. Your crash seems very specific to however you are setup so if you have to use Ungoogled Chromium then thats fine but don't go recommending it except to hardcore chrome obsessives.

I use palemoon. But i intend to use IceCat when 78 is released, I'll give it a try Palemoon is alright, i don't have problems with it. And i don't think it is botnet, i recommend it but i'd understand if not everyone wants to use it.

>>32467 >That was supposed to be a joke. Sorry, guess I'm too autistic for that. >How is the performance, considering it uses Python for some things? Most of the heavy lifting is done on the Qt side (in C++), so it's fine. Personally, I have never experienced any problems. and even if i did, the keybindings and no-bullshit interface would still trump everything else

>>32462 TuRn hArDwaRe aCCeLEraTiON oFf

>>32464 >Can you elaborate? What makes it so unlikely in your opinion? Assuming that AMD is in fact purposely crashing Firefox systems, assign probabilities to each of these: 1. Google is engaging in an anti-competitive conspiracy to undermine Firefox's marketshare of 7% by partnering with the company that has less than 20% of new PC marketshare. 2. AMD engineers received an order from AMD corporate to make this happen and they just did it. They never leaked this to a jouranlist or got drunk and let it slip at Computex or anything. 3. One AMD engineer was bribed to sneak code in that looks for firefox.exe or something, none of the other engineers challenged it, and it made it into production. 4. The "bug" has been out for a while but as far as you can tell you're the only person to notice the problem. This isn't being discussed on Reddit. There are no fanboys talking about "Firegate". There is no evidence of this on the Mozilla bugtracker. >>32472 YeS.

If Pale Moon ends up getting worse, I'll probably just switch to Ungoogled Chromium if I'm not on Linux anymore.

>>32462 >>32462 Crashing is a BIG red flag. Why? it forces debug/crash reporter which forces data collection for mozilla and also crash reporter of Windows. *cough* tor Anyways, it could also be a memory bug like when you put the device into hibernate/sleep and your ram gets filled up. I think this isn't an AMD situation but rather a Mozilla problem. What if some soykaf code got into the browser and it's actually a backdoor designed for certain processor?

>>32468 Have you tried downgrading to older versions? If some malicious dev got into mozilla team and inserting AMD-specific backdoors at some point, then it means at some point it didn't have such backdoors or bugs. Try downgrading on your device (not your moms as it will crap out the browser profile). Try seamonkey. Other than that, my theory is you just had a really special backdoor that this thing only happens to you. No #firegate happening as lainon said. >>32464 >Then explain the crashes on two different machines and two different OSes. *cough* tor

Am I a weirdo if I use SRWare Iron?

>>32472 >TuRn hArDwaRe aCCeLEraTiON oFf I turned off hardware acceleraton both in about:config and settings and it didn't do anything. I'm now an ungoogled chromium user now :( >>32473 The way you presented it makes it unlikely, just the last point is doubtful. >There is no evidence of this on the Mozilla bugtracker. Remember normal users won't investigate the problem and won't report the bug. They will just switch to what works for them (chrome). Also working on small scale still works and still is profitable, even if its just a few percents. >>32519 >What if some soykaf code got into the browser and it's actually a backdoor designed for certain processor? This would be hard for developers from Mozilla to find a bug in CPUs or GPUs to use it to sabotage their own browser. Maybe someone showed them the bug and paid them to introduce it. This makes it more likely than Google paying AMD to crash the browser. The strange thing is that 3D games on Wangblows don't crash the system, but the browser does, but maybe that's just that games are tested more. >>32520 >Try downgrading on your device (not your moms as it will crap out the browser profile). This bug is with me since I bought the hardware, but just recently I noticed it is connected to firefox. I just didn't expect it was firefox, because I use it every time I do something on my computer. I noticed that when moving cursor over a web page causes crashing. >Other than that, my theory is you just had a really special backdoor that this thing only happens to you. I'm not a targetted individual yet, lol. I just use Tor sometimes to post cringy things in the /vent/ thread, but that's all. >>32556 >Am I a weirdo if I use SRWare Iron? Yes. Why would you use some obscure botnet? Read the log from IRC on the website, the developer says he literally removed all privacy features: https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/iron.html

Do you guys really compile ungoogled chromium every update? Or do you just trust other user's builds? Seems like huge pain. It takes 2+ hours to compile on my old i7 3770.

>>32578 >Do you guys really compile ungoogled chromium every update? Or do you just trust other user's builds? I have 8GB of RAM and a good CPU, but the build still fails at the end. I'm not even sure if 16GB would be enough. I use Guix System and wait for the build farm to bake it, trusting the software is built reproducively, but I'll probably end up buying the next 16GB of RAM. Funny thing is I'm able to build IceCat on my 3GB RAM, Core 2 Duo machine - it takes about 6 hours, but works, unlike Chrome.

>>32464 >>32462 You're intentionally spreading FUD. A userspace program cannot take a whole system down anymore. You're basically lying.

>>32592 Do you consider every form of discussing issues in things you like lying? I'm legitimately sorry, my computer crashes, when using a program you consider good. It's not my fault hardware manufacturers sell devices with half-baked firmware/drivers or even malicious functionalities and I'm free to discuss these issues. Also I'm still using IceCat for some things, like watching anime, because it somehow doesn't work on my build of Ungoogled Chromium, but I can't risk crashing during important work, that's just it.

OP here, I upgraded IceCat 78.3.0 and GPU firmware together with the Linux kernel 5.8.11 and I haven't have any crashes for some time now. It also appears using Chromium didn't help, as I previously thought, so no conspiracy soykaf takes place. Btw, maybe it's placebo, but the new IceCat seems to be faster. Just continue with the thread and ignore my schizo theories.

>>32462 OP, install guix and start bisecting the builds starting two years back, find when it went wrong. You may have found an actual bug, but maybe not. In this case, we'd know.

Why would you recommand Icecat instead of Mozilla? Mozilla is installed by default on Kali for example, why is it not icecat?

>>33123 >kali lurk more icecat has not mozilla's botnet https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/browsers.html#ff but also icecat is dead, i dropped icecat and started using palemon

>>33123 >Why would you recommand Icecat instead of Mozilla? Firefox ships by default with spyware like telemetry or google safe browsing sending your all queries to google to check if a website doesn't contain malware (spy on you). >Mozilla is installed by default on Kali for example, why is it not icecat? Kali is for pentesting, not real cracking and is a meme.

Tor Browser here for daily usage. I am listing few thoughts below, keep in mind that for tasks where I have to identify myself I use non Tor Browser such as Ungoogled Chromium because Tor triggers anti-fraud systems instantly. Around 99% of my web browsing is done using Tor Browser. Pros >great privacy and anonymity out of the box >stable, I haven't experienced any crashes or bugs >ability to to access onion services >easy way to cycle between security modes, from safest with basic functions enabled to almost stock Firefox experience on standard Cons >slightly slow compared to most mainstream VPN providers, Tor routes traffic trough three hops for normal non onion sites and trough six hops for onion sites. Although I got used to speed quickly myself >many websites don't like Tor users, some block them outright >little to no customization is possible without ruining the anonymity model >some networks block Tor users from connecting to Tor >some people might think you as an pedophile

>>33128 >>many websites don't like Tor users, some block them outright Never had a problem >>little to no customization is possible without ruining the anonymity model This is true >>some networks block Tor users from connecting to Tor Use a bridge >>some people might think you as an pedophile No they wont, this is not freenet.

>>33143 I don't care what the technical advantages for paedophiles are, but people actually know what TOR is, and that it's somehow associated with paedohpilia, drugs, violence for hire. How many even know what freenet is?

What browser should be used? Really, they're all crap. Instead, all the features that a browser has should be made into separate components, or combinations of components, so that any one can be switched for another one. So that, if I want, I can just not have a javascript interpreter, instead of having to go figure out how to disable it.

>>33128 >>many websites don't like Tor users, some block them outright May be the site admin forgetting to add a whitelist for tor users in the Cloudflare admin control panel unless Cloudflare had started allowing tor users on all sites with Cloudflare DDoS protection by default.

I'm using waterfox with ryzen and I aint getting no crashes

>>33486 >I'm using waterfox with ryzen and I aint getting no crashes It seems either my hardware is buggy or broken, I'll never know. >waterfox This browser doesn't seem to really respect privacy: https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/waterfox.html Maybe something have changed since the article was written, but for me it looks like the author just wants to have something in his CV more than actually develop a privacy-friendly browser.

>>33180 Probably a few do know it, but most importantly Freenet has been quite solidly pwn'd by LEO by now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet#cite_ref-52

>>33486 >>33487 Waterfox got bought by an AD company. Avoid.

>>33521 I literally don't use freenet because of that >>33612 >proprietary software you know where you are?

>>33521 Node isolation attacks affect every anonymity network, but can easily be prevented by not allowing the adversary to selectively censor connections. Tor and I2P accomplish this by routing connections across international borders. You can proxy Freenet over a VPN to a foreign jurisdiction, in order to prevent any single country from performing an isolation attack. An even better method would be to use Tor onion addresses or I2P b32 addresses instead of IP addresses to identify nodes.

>>33521 Node isolation attacks affect every anonymity network, but can easily be prevented by not allowing the adversary to selectively censor connections. Tor and I2P accomplish this by routing connections across international borders. You can proxy Freenet over a VPN to a foreign jurisdiction, in order to prevent any single country from performing an isolation attack. An even better method would be to use Tor onion addresses or I2P b32 addresses instead of IP addresses to identify nodes. Another method is to download the entire Freenet data store, in order to prevent the adversary from identifying which chunks you actually want to read.

Ungoogled Chromium is the answer.

>>32462 how is firefox that bad privacy/freedom wise i mean yea their ceo is a fuarrrk, but, palemoon has been a bit shady when they sometimes block privacy focused addons(like the ublock fork that clicked on everything), and with icecat i really dont see the difference also, i heard somewhere a long time ago(/g/ wiki probably) that ungoogled-chrominium is still a botnet. Is that true or is it safe?

>>32470 Don't you run into compatibility problems with certain websites when using it? It's based on very old Firefox code. It still has support for some very old extensions, right?

>>33128 Tor is overkill for normal browsing, IMO. And using Tor's limited exit nodes for daily browsing is not the most optimal use for them. Also, the speeds are quite slowed on Tor, isn't it?

>>34589 >And using Tor's limited exit nodes for daily browsing is not the most optimal use for them. Pic related. It's good to have many people using Tor all the time, because it provides a lot of noise to blend into. >Also, the speeds are quite slowed on Tor, isn't it? It's not that bad. You can even stream HD video on most circuits.

>>34598 Huh, streaming HD video. Never had such good experiences on my end :p. I sometimes use Tor to access certain blocked websites but haven't used it as my daily driver.

Qutebrowser vs Surf Whuch do you prefer

>> 34644 > qutebrowser or surf Qutebrowser. Video acceleration on surf is very strange to setup. I think I was able to get it working after installing a few separate packages. Took some googling. I personally dislike having to use a separate program to manage tabs (tabbed), but that's the suckless philosophy I guess. The only thing I wish qutebrowser had more of was more privacy features. This isn't relevant to the question, but I use the tor browser as a main driver. It makes me feel comfortable and removes any anxiety of what information is being harvested from my machine. The networks speeds are tolerable.

What about LibreWolf?

>>34644 They're fairly different. Qutebrowser is kind of like a stripped down chromium with a decent but unconventional qt interface bolted on top. Extending it is kind of like extending irssi or mutt in that you use the api hooks it gives you and call out to external scripts, but can't fuarrrk around with the internals much. Surf doesn't even have a real interface. You're meant to mess with the internals but you have to write C and recompile. It's like extending dwm or any other suckless util (write a bunch of shell scripts and if that fails, patch it). You might also want to look at luakit. It seems to be extensible in a more emacs-like way, in that it has an embedded scripting language (lua obviously) that lets you root around in the internals without having to patch C code.

>>34589 >>34598 >Also, the speeds are quite slow on Tor >It's not that bad inb4 nsa built exit nodes, advertised them as high bandwidth but made them very slow so the network would be less usable

Considering vimb or qutebrowser (which I've used in the past). Which should I use?

daily reminder that all web browsers that support more than 3 websites are based on the same bloated webshit engines, and when someone says "stripped down" it means 3 things like the menu and download manager were removed, while it still has 99% of the same bloat as the other browsers

Is there anything that's just an HTTP client? Something other processes, e.g. an HTML renderer, can interact with. I think the key to web-browsing freedom, is modularity.

>>34800 Yes, curl.

>>34540 UGC is fine as long as you download from a trusted source, or compile it yourself. Mozilla collects a lot of telemetry (more than Brave, surprisingly). Also it soykafs on their users and tells them that their opinions don't matter to the development process, think GNOME here.

>>34800 OH NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO BUMPERINO

>>34713 asuka user come back we miss you

Anons we can benefit from all the pros of Tor Browser without the Tor network; it's basically Firefox ESR already mitigated. See the last comments for instructions: https://www.ghacks.net/2018/11/26/can-you-use-the-tor-browser-without-tor-connection/

>>35196 >Anons We're lainons, bro. >Anons we can benefit from all the pros of Tor Browser without the Tor network; it's basically Firefox ESR already mitigated. I use GNU IceCat which is basically Firefox ESR with mitigations.

>>35205 >We're lainons, bro. No, Agent Smith! Don't tell the CIA what they did wrong, they'll learn!

>>35185 please do not encourage asuka user to come back let him stay in his tor containment board

>>35205 Tor is more updated than IceCat.

>>35221 >Tor is more updated than IceCat. I'm using IceCat from Guix - it is the most up to date version available.

https:// www.securityweek.com/chrome-update-patches-actively-exploited-freetype-vulnerability CVE-2020-15999 was discovered by Google Project Zero researcher Sergei Glazunov on October 19. It was immediately also reported to FreeType developers, who created an emergency fix on October 20, which has been included in FreeType 2.10.4. >Glazunov, who shared details about the vulnerability on the FreeType bug tracked, noted that while the emergency fix appears to be working, a long-term patch will require a thorough code review. >The issue is related to Load_SBit_Png, a function that processes PNG images embedded into fonts. Buffer overflow vulnerabilities often allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code. In this case, exploitation apparently involves specially crafted font files.

Why not just use Lynx?

>>35226 Well, the main reason people won't use any cli browser is because of the javascript requirement for certain websites. For example, my college site requires javascript to be enabled and - at times - flash to be enabled, as well.

Firefox ESR with privacy settings is the best option for a "daily use" browser. I've tried other browsers but none come close! Waterfox is outdated (and was supposedly bought by some corporation i don't remember the name of right now), Icecat is also outdated and breaks almost every website, Brave is untrustworthy, and Ungoogled Chromium is like trying to cover a turd with sprinkles. Even if the maintainer did remove all the google spyware, why take the risk? It still doesn't change that it was made by Google and they have full control over the upstream and could add some sneaky spyware in the future. Also Ungoogled Chromium needs to be compiled and doesn't have the ability to update, so you have to uninstall and reinstall every time there's a new update! That's annoying. So yeah, Firefox ESR for daily use is the safest and most convenient option, and TOR if you live in an authoritarian country or want to search for something "risky".

>>35250 Mozilla isn't trustworthy either. https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/mozilla.html Palemoon is decent but it's starting to rot. https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/browsers.html#palemoon Do you use one of those custom user.js files?

>>35226 Wait, there are people who use Lynx as their daily driver?

>>35250 Waterfox used to be alright but not much of an improvement. Have you used Vivaldi?

just use ungoogled chromium like a sane user until the time comes

>>35250 Just use librewolf. Firefox is a complete dud. Just look at all the outgoing connections on a vanilla install. If you're also a fan of pirated content like music, the anti-malware and safe browsing feature will send the sites into anti-piracy groups which leads to shutdown. >Looking Glass incident and "Mr Robot" coverup. >Firefox Studies. >It still doesn't change that it was made by Google and they have full control over the upstream and could add some sneaky spyware in the future. Remember the "downloads microphone binary blob at startup" found by Debian user? Shit like >>35223 happens all the time that there's even hackathons in China focused on browser exploits. No mainstream browser is secure.

>>35314 >the anti-malware and safe browsing feature will send the sites into anti-piracy groups which leads to shutdown. Please explain what you're talking about in some detail.

>>35319 Not him, but this is what he's talking about https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Safe_Browsing It's that checkbox under about:preferences#privacy that says "block dangerous and deceptive content". It's in theory designed to be anti-phishing but I wouldn't be surprised if it does what that lainon days, either intentionally or because piracy sites often run sketchy ads or attempt to load malware domains. Still, the >send the sites into anti-piracy groups which leads to shutdown thing calls for some elaboration. Either way, you probably want to uncheck that box. It's a telemetry vector, and (anonymized iirc) browsing data does make its way to google.

>>35314 >last line Word filter u ok? >>35331 >>35319 It's futile to be honest. I've seen through firefox versions 4X-82, while also on gecko stuff like pale moon, waterfox before it had linux build, and I was one of the first anons to figure out how firefox default does insane soykaf like this and way before the user.js thing became popularized. People don't even remember when firefox suddenly removed the option to turn javascript on/off while having a certain search engine bookmarked with a unique URI to link all your soykaf together (that was when botnet wasn't that powerful yet and geocities still existed). I've seen through soykaf, it used to be one "turn off" switch for everything (like safebrowsing) to stop botnet, and then I looked at my network logs and still see https requests with such URLs on the pic. Turns out every incremental update sometimes resets your "hardened about:config settings" and sometimes flicks switches related to privacy back to on or even adds more soykaf to circumvent your settings, even firefox forces a crash report so they can phone some soykaf. Absolutely terrible. Even today, I can say privacy is still a huge disappointment, since both the biggest user.js projects do not even try to nullify these URLs on the pic or even turn off safebrowsing properly. Actually they want it turned on to protect windows privacy-larpers from toolbar malwares while legitimately going against their core purpose and letting this obvious crypto|pseudo-malware blocker in.

>>35536 >both the biggest user.js projects Which ones?

Every time I try to build a browser based personal project, I regret it. For work, it seems fine because nobody gives a soykaf about a quality product there. But for my own projects? I'll give you my latest example. I wanted to make a media gallery in browser. Browsers handle images and video just fine, so why not build a media library in the browser. Basically, I would store the media in JS file objects and save them in an IndexedDB. Naturally, I want to be able to enter a URL into the thing and have the file stored for offline use. Nope. CORS says fuarrrk you. The only way to do it is to have the end user disable CORS globally, which is never going to happen, or to proxy all the files through your own server. Not only does that eat a ton of expensive bandwidth, but it now forces me into the position that I must spy on all my users. The only other option seems to be to force the file to be downloaded and then have the user drag the file back into the browser to be stored for offline viewing. Basically the worst user experience possible. Absolutely unthinkable for a typical mobile phone user. Everyone spends so much energy arguing about which is the "best browser", they don't seem to realize the words "best" and "browser" don't belong next to each other. Browsers suck. All of them.

>>34588 Not the lainon you were talking to but compatibility is alright. Stuff breaks sometimes (GitHub recently changed soykaf on the frontend and now some menus stopped working, for example), but it's few and far between enough that it doesn't become a major annoyance (I don't really tend to browse a lot of javascript-heavy stuff often though, so your mileage may vary). I think they've been doing a somewhat great job of "keeping up" with modern stuff, especially considering how insane web standards are. >It still has support for some very old extensions, right? XUL extensions are still supported, which are a tad different from "modern" WebExtensions and not exactly trivial to interoperate. It has uBlock Origin, which is all I care to be honest, but I would imagine some people would get annoyed at their favorite extension not working or something. I don't know, came from Firefox and I'm overall satisfied with what it is, but as the other lainon said would understand if someone ended up not wanting to use or something.

You know what is sad? Not only every browser is a botnet, but all of them is like kicking dead whales down the beach. Then again, when every single site is soykaf because of web devs, you can't find a good browser anymore.

>>36286 Welcome to the future, anon.

Servo development was moved from Mozilla to the Linux Foundation. Maybe web browser diversity is not dead after all. https://blog.servo.org/2020/11/17/servo-home/

>>36286 It's easy to blame web devs, but see >>35582 I'm of the opinion that browsers are intentionally crippled because it protects certain company monopolies. Take the given example, the CORS thing. I can't build a web app that lets users import videos from youtube, because you know, the group that makes the browser owns youtube. Then you find web extensions can bypass this whole CORS nonsense! Oh, sure, but guess what? You can't build a web extension that downloads youtube videos either, because that's against chrome web store policy. You can download other sites, but not youtube specifically. That is against the rules. Any time you try to build something that would challenge the monopoly, you run into these brick walls. Most web devs never even notice, because browsers are such soykaf to begin with. They spend so much time trying to build a calendar widget, or display time in the correct time zones, or produce a table with resizable headers and scrolling bodies... they stay so busy trying to reinvent wheels, they don't realize they are locked in the cage made for them by the monopolies.

>>35548 arkenfox/pyllyukko LibreFox project was the only user.js that knew of this abomination but it got unmaintained. The good thing is LibreWolf took the legacy (hence libre) and even forks ff nightly, and bundles their config out of the box. The only other "firefox fork" browser that even had gone as far as to remove safebrowsing, first to implement canvas poisoning completely, and introduce more privacy/cipher enhancements directly is Pale Moon. I say if you just want the modern Firefox experience, just use LibreWolf. Or if you want to reminisce the antiquity of Firefox back in the days, still use old addons, using Dom Inspector to theme anything then Pale Moon is the way to go (also, if you're not a fan of GTK3 or, this is absolutely the best choice, it's also themeable with QtCurve).

>>36731 LibreWolf This needs an ESR release or proper update mechanics. Building this every month and checking if personal prefs need changes every month is too bothersome. This is is a mess at the moment.

>>36731 >>36752 It's much easier to add things to arkenfox user.js than to sift through this incomprehensible crap.

How hard is to make a simple browser that only runs HTML and CSS? It's just a personal project. I mean hard because I have read that trying to make a new browser from scratch now is almost impossible.

>>36756 Sending a TCP packet and getting a response and getting text from is a very easy thing to do. The problem comes with graphics.

>>36756 Check out links2, maybe you can contribute.

>>36822 links doesn't run css.

>>36828 Contribute CSS support to the Links2 GUI mode pls.

>>36835 Netsurf has it, what it lacks is a fake_firefox mode, that would be real nice to have.

My personal choice goes to Firefox (Mozilla=bad) with a good hardenning via user.js and soykaf. I tried some chromium based (actually using unggogled-chromium at work cause Firefox on Windows10 is fuarrrking slow) and I don't like them. Lacks the modularity and the customization provided by Firefox. Sometimes on less capable achines I just use Palemoon or Falkon (pretty lightweight but as I say lacks the modularity of Firefox) give an eye it's an interesting project: https://www.falkon.org/about/

>>36885 Oh and by the way obligatory Tor Browser for onions or censored media, cyberactivisme, drug dealing and cheeze pizza. LibreWolf seems interesting but not viable.

>>36886 >drug dealing and cheeze pizza. You mean personally or a reason someone would use it?

>>36890 both calm down cop it was a joke I'm not into drugs or cheese pizza you know. Just the usual human traffickingand hitman contracts. I also run a red room

>>32467 >How is the performance, considering it uses Python for some things? I've recently found that the startup time is really lagging behind Firefox. Anyone else has experienced this problem?

>>36886 I've been using LibreWolf for the past few weeks. It's nice. I also get some performance improvements (probably from building it myself)

>>36755 >>36752 >I did not understand; reply. It's harder to add user.js on top of mainline firefox that does not respect your modifications let alone add-on. Meanwhile, librewolf is on nightly and they personally combine all of the available user.js into their build themselves so it's meant to work, unlike with using your own user.js it would be left behind when the project gets dormant for weeks. No one knows when your mainline firefox will do another outrageous update like suddenly resetting your about:config settings, or downgrading your min-tls settings just so Zoom could work for every remote student and worker. This happened to me like a bunch of times, turning off safebrowsing manually, after some update it will turn back on which I found out after my logs showed me it phoned some megabytes to google IP during startup. I even barely use mainline firefox but it tries to sell out or something, and at the time user.js projects weren't created yet so I've seen through all the bullshit they've done way before user.js / moz.cfg projects popped up.

>>36959 user.js gets applied on every Firefox startup

>>37030 Completely not failsafe. I guess you're just trolling if you don't understand what I'm trying to communicate at this point. >Firefox updated >user.js outdated until they see what's new >Firefox Update has added more preference names telemetry* and safebrowsing* configurations that had an initial bool value of true as default >there were even new "invasive telemetry" preferences added every new release which has invalidated all of my telemetry* configurations every week. >startup took longer than expected and I checked my logging tunnel only to see a bunch of IP that shouldn't even work since I have nullified all https:// entries >turns out there were new https:// telemetry url entries and even a telemetry override configuration which at some point also got removed They can easily defeat your user.js by adding a preference name unknown to your user.js projects. And neither of the arkenfox user.js nor pyllyukko user.js even disables any of the unneeded safebrowsing values but I think they did at one point during their early releases until maybe they got a slap on the wrist for messing what maybe a potentially hidden revenue method contract the browser had from one company ever since 2008.

what do folks think of Iridium?

>>38215 not good...

>>38215 somehow dumber than Brave.

>>38221 >>38222 how is it different from ungoogled chromium?

>>38215 I've tried to use it for a while to replace Furryfox but their patch cycle is really worrisome to me. Often times it'll go 6 months without an update, while critical vulnerabilities were patched 6 months ago upstream. The developers claim on their relevant github issues that due to their security model these security patches aren't necessary, but that reads like a marketing phrase to me.

>>38224 >that due to their security model these security patches aren't necessary, but that reads like a marketing phrase to me. well... these are in fact the OpenBSD people (iirc). so, I'm not surprised they have Amish sensibilities about this

I'd use Firefox if the updates didn't constantly change settings back to privacy invasive settings and the userjs was easier. For now I'm using Ungoogled Chromium which is pretty good anyways. I'd prefer a userjs that doesn't add extra anti-fingerprinting settings on top of getting rid of the spyware, similar to what default settings Ungoogled Chromium has. I just don't want to use Firefox with the extra anti-fingerprinting features since it makes things more inconvenient and Tor Browser already has those anti-fingerprinting features by default. I'm not going to remove Tor network mode from Tor Browser. Any suggestions and tips for Firefox userjs?

>>38234 Woops I didn't read the above posts about Firefox userjs and I didn't set a password on my post.

>>38235 it's fine. >>38226 still don't get why iridium is supposed to be bad

what's the drill with flash these days? are there people trying to develop/patch an independent version?

>>38234 use a privacy-respecting firefox fork like librewolf.

How do I learn how to hack a website so I can get access to hidden pdfs?

>>38293 Unpatched telemetry still slips through Librewolf. https://gitlab.com/librewolf-community/browser/linux/-/issues/138 https://web.archive.org/web/20201213223331/https://gitlab.com/librewolf-community/browser/linux/-/issues/138

>>35196 You can, but that's retarded: the Tor Browser is specifically made so that its users have the same (or nearly the same) fingerprint. Fingerprinting is an exceptionally powerful identification method, often more accurate than even an IP address. By browsing the web through Tor using any browser but the Tor Browser, you're basically giving up your anonymity, since you will stick out like a sore thumb even among other Tor users. The entire point of the Tor network is to blend in. The standalone Tor daemon is meant to connect to the internet through the Tor network from every other application that isn't the web, such as email, IRC, ftp, ssh, etc. But it shouldn't be used for web browsing.

>>38518 TB doesn't achieve what it wants to with regards to fingerprinting, not at all. Go run it against some fingerprinting tests out there, and prepare to be shocked and disappointed.

I'm using firefox daily. Pretty comfy with TreeStyleTabs, CookieAutoDelete, uBlock Origin, and uMatrix, mainly. I have tried qutebrowser in the past, and I loved the keybinds so much, but somehow I ran into a bunch of problems. Tried it again a few days ago and I'm blown away. No problems whatsoever... besides not having addons, mainly uMatrix and uBlock Origin (and 4chanX for comfy lainchan browsing). How do you qutebrowser users cope with that? I'd fuarrrking love to switch to qutebrowser, but those things are holding me back quite a bit. Feedback would be very much appreciated. I have thought about ungoogled-chromium a bit, but didn't want to contribute to the growing share of Chromium's on the internet, so I decided against it. >>32465 >third-party uMatrix implementation (https://gitlab.com/jgkamat/jmatrix) for Qutebrowser Well I guess that answers the uMatrix problem I'm facing. Thanks for the link, I'll check it out. >>32578 >Do you guys really compile ungoogled chromium every update? I almost forgot, that was horrible, true. >>32579 >I'm not even sure if 16GB would be enough. I was able to build it on my laptop with 18GB of RAM just fine. It just took a while. >>33128 >Tor Browser here for daily usage. Good to see! I'd love to browse the internet through tor, but there are too many advantages. Maybe I should try configuring it through Firefox (or qutebrowser even) and see how it does. >inb4 no privacy It's better than nothing. >some networks block Tor users from connecting to Tor Try using a bridge or setting one up yourself. Should have no problem then. >>35299 >Wait, there are people who use Lynx as their daily driver? I tried for a bit, but I didn't really like the experience too much so I went back.

>>38584 I think you can use userscripts in qutebrowser, so you can still use 4chanX.

>>38234 I guess you want to create a custom user.js >remove Tor network mode from Tor Browser Easy to disable. lockPref("extensions.torlauncher.start_tor", false); lockPref("network.dns.disabled", false); lockPref("network.proxy.socks_remote_dns", false); lockPref("network.proxy.type", 0); You can add. lockPref("privacy.resistFingerprinting", false); lockPref("privacy.resistFingerprinting.letterboxing", false);

>>33124 i don't like palemoon because the owner is an autistic fur user and the redistribution license is the most strictest bullshit I ever seen

>>34697 Nyxt browser is the closest thing to Emacs-like you could find, though

>>39359 Not that lainon, but yeah it looks like a pretty nice project. It still needs some umatrix-like features implemented, but last I know the hooks required for it weren't quite ready yet. I wonder if that has changed?

>>38526 It actually manages very well if you disable JS. You'll be indistinguishable from other TB users who disable JS, which unfortunately is a smaller subset of the userbase.

If you're genuinely serious about having a "private" experience on The Web you will either have to avoid nearly every website and trust the ones you do visit with your information, or use the Tor Browser Bundle. Anything other than that will result in you most likely getting fingerprinted. However, one may be willing to compromise some of their anonymity and privacy for the sake of Web freedom (say you dislike the duopoly between the Gecko and Blink engine). You may choose to use a browser like Links2, Netsurf, or Dillo through Tor routing, but know that this will make you extremely vulnerable to fingerprinting, sans Links2 (sort of) as optimal config settings will allow you to create a moderately private experience.

I use pale moon, but i don't expect everyone to use it, pale moon has like 322312312312802 trillion options, which is good for me, i can easily customize it and do whatever i want with it >inb4 devs are stupid yeah, and? i don't give a soykaf about them because they're not controlling by browser, they add asshole things, such as blocking addons, sure, but you can disable that blacklist without any problem.

>>39364 >they're not controlling (my?) browser One would think the developers of a program are responsible for its development.

Why does librewolf crash when I open a lot of tabs, why wont browser.tab.unloadonlowmemory work? t. anon with 8G-its RAM on artix linux I am angry, i need my containers and i need my first-party isolation.

>>39360 Not sure, there's (request-resource-hook) but I don't know if it's enough for something umatrix-like (but seeing as sometimes a freestance (yt -> invidious, instagram -> bibliogram etc) redirector redirects me when there's an embed youtube video in a page, it might be enough). Also, I think some person was going to write an adblocking WebKit extension in C/C++ (yes, there's support for that too IIRC). Oh and in addition they've recently added nice support for plugins/extensions written in Lisp, probably even a newbie could write one now

>>36756 Extremely hard. Look at NetSurf. It's the only (semi-)serious open source non-gecko/webkit/blink web browser. Those guys clearly know what they're doing and yet their engine is still very far from having a complete implementation of HTML5 + CSS3.

>>39384 This is my primary reason for hating the World Wide Web, it's full of so many complexities that making a working engine for it is nearly as hard as making an operating system; ridiculous. Furthermore, one of three primary web engines you listed (Blink) is just a WebKit fork, which itself is just a KHTML fork.

>install basilisk >needs less than half the memory librewolf and firefox 84 need somehow >no noticeable performance drop >all extensions are availible, even multifox and redirector are all functional >adding additional search engines doesn't require a whole extension >has webrtc, peertube just works Um what Am i getting punished by bug gods and exploitative hackers for thinking i can have a normal browser? >le google has been reversing firefox's progress this whole time fac

>>39353 palemoon is arse m8 wish i could get rid of it

>>39422 They shoved that WebRTC cancer into Basilisk now? Very disappointing to hear.

>>38584 I switched to qutebrowser for a while now and am more than happy with it. I recommend it to everyone thinking about it. Give it a try, configure it a bit if you need to and you'll love it. I added a userscript to connect me to tor easily via a shortcut, as well as change duckduckgo to it's onion mirror. >>38641 Still haven't gotten 4chanX to work, sadly. I tried doing the greasemonkey script thingy built-into qutebrowser but that hasn't worked yet.

>>39431 At least its easy to turn off. A lot of these browsers have the catch-22 scenario of either not having features that more and more websites rely on and thus not getting people onboard or adding these features and then having the kinds of people that use niche browsers refuse to use them. As long as I can turn it off I'm happy.

>>38314 Maybe I'll go in-depth at some other time but the thing was probably a missed "update" by the Librewolf community but what surprises me is how they did not even tests their builds with a quick analysis. UChrome doesn't have such issue by obfuscating most of URLs in the code but it seems Librewolf had missed a lot of "moz services" in the about:config. Back then it was easy to just filter https:// on about config to see every telemetry but they seem to have made it hard for people. The only way to filter and survey your about config is by pressing "show all" and copying the entire text. A quick check shows that it somehow sends DNS requests with your "hostname" which might be an "intended feature" of firefox (thus your hostname is exposed to your dns provider). There was also another IP that has something to do with content-signature-2.cdn.mozilla.net which I think has no way of turning off much like how they removed the option to turn off javascript past 2010, a clever tactic: https://github.com/mozilla/normandy/issues/2092 The other one was an amazon IP that just shows 404 error and has no DNS but should go away with a fresh profile. I can't pinpoint what was it exactly. The last one probably from that issue you linked is from mozilla location services which is surprisingly suspicious the fact it changes to different IP addresses every reboot to the point it does not repeat (doesn't make it anonymous but even more suspicious like trying to evade IP blacklist unless you ban-range amazon cloudfront servers). It even works direct-ip and throws you to MLS. >The Mozilla Location Service (MLS) is an open service, which lets devices determine their location based on network infrastructure like Bluetooth beacons, cell towers and WiFi access points. This network based location service complements satellite based navigation systems like A-GPS. Clearly it is a foolproof location and device tracking (enumeration) which seems to good to be true but can easily be abused by different parties with deep interests or pockets *cough* funders. You can turn it off by setting browser.region.update.enabledfalse but still is futile as it'd just bea game of whack-a-mole with mozilla adding invasiveness every other month or so and your logs would have leaks from amazon/google IP addresses at startup which you can't log/test if you are offline.

>>39489 A simple user.js focused on link/connection removal seems more useful to have. There are already other user.js projects.

>>39490 Never seen any yet. There used to be Librefox js which has IJWY and it was available in >IJWY (I Just Want You To Shut Up) >This is a set of settings that aim to remove all the server links embedded in Firefox and other calling home functions in the purpose of blocking un-needed connections. The objective is zero unauthorized connection (ping/telemetry/Mozilla/Google...). Unfortunately, it has been discontinued. Pic related is what they do to you if you manage to make one yourself. Heard the same rumors (threats) might have happened with pale moon why they dropped 27.9.4 and a bunch of CPU specific builds.

I used to use firefox until a few days ago when Mozilla just outright said they have an "obligation" to censor the internet when talking about how "it's not enough to just deplatform Trump". And because I know the replies are coming, I wanna make it clear that I do not like Trump at all! This isn't about politics, it's about freedom of speech! I simply can NOT support a company that is explicitly in support of internet censorship! Censorship is inherently anti-open source and anyone who supports it can go fuarrrk themselves. So yeah, I switched to ungoogled. I was originally against it because it uses chromium and we need to "fight the google monopoly!", but fuarrrk it, if Mozilla is gonna pull this soykaf then I'm done supporting them! All they've done over the years is continue releasing soykafty updates, adding soykaf nobody wanted and removing soykaf everyone liked! They haven't done a single good thing in over a decade!

>>39858 I used Firefox until they finally murdered Classic Theme Restorer. Then I had finally had enough.

>>39858 US corporations are puppets.

>>39858 How fuarrrked are spinoffs? Like Waterfox,palemon, etc.

>>39867 Not better than Firefox. Maybe tor browser and icecat are a bit better.

>>39867 Palemoon is decent. Some websites are slow and a small handful are broken on it. It's having problems though. https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/browsers.html#palemoon I still plan to use it unless the devs start to do forced updates for the browser.

>>39858 >inflammatory and misleading headline from notorious fake news and disinformation peddler Russia Today Here's what mozilla actually wants: >Changing these dangerous dynamics requires more than just the temporary silencing or permanent removal of bad actors from social media platforms. Additional precise and specific actions must also be taken: >>Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted. >>Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms so we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom, and the associated impact. >>Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. >>Work with independent researchers to facilitate in-depth studies of the platforms’ impact on people and our societies, and what we can do to improve things. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/ They're not calling for censorship anyone, they're calling on social media corporations to be more transparent and fight disinformation campaigns more actively.

>>39873 The goal seems completely impractical. Where do you get to know who paid for what adds? If this ever starts to matter anyone can just setup a proxy company to pay adds. Also independent researchers dont exist. Everyone is dependent on money so you might as well track who pays them if you really keen on the follow the money idea.

>>39873 >notorious fake news and disinformation peddler Russia Today

>>39874 >The goal seems completely impractical. Where do you get to know who paid for what adds? Facebook already does this: https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/

>>39876 fb is one site even if a important one. The expectation they generate is that they want to get the info for any site. Secondary voluntary names provided dont solve the mentioned proxy issue.

>>39873 No doubt in my mind that all the major companies will follow suit and cia and friends will push this movement full force to the next level. What i ponder on is how long it will go until this is enforced at isp level. With the 20k patriot act 2.0 i dont think it will be long until we have a locked down internet and those who somehow manage to rail against it will become rona victims.

>not using properly set up firefox pathetic

>>39873 The problem is, who will these "independent researchers" be? Because I can guarantee you they will not be unbiased in the slightest. I would be ok with this if it was a feature that you could opt into, but >Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation. Reveals that it won't be. It doesn't take a genious to realise what they are trying to do.

>>39873 Upon reading the actual blog post, this is the wrong take and I completely agree with >>39905 , because as mentioned it relies on the false premise that there is indeed some third party that can act as an oracle and decide what is 'disinformation'. Nonsense, absolutely. I have temporarily jumped ship to palemoon.

Well... disinformation is a problem and something should be done. It should be up to journalism and content platforms to counter disinformation however. Anyone can spread information online, we should probably let professionals handle the facts, more than we do now. Oh right, newspapers died and journalists get paid with advertisements and paywalls now. We should probably fix this problem as well.

>>39907 What makes you say that disinformation is a problem, or at least more of a problem now than it was, say 40 years ago?

>>39907 90% of "journalism" out there right now is disinformation. >we should probably let professionals handle the facts Really incredibly naive

I'm thinking of switching to GNU Icecat instead of firefox. I really like firefox and I'm used it a long time with umatrix and the containers and everything else but I don't want to have anything to do with a company that wants to censor the internet. Is Icecat okay or should I go to palemoon or something?

>>39924 I'm enjoying palemoon with pentadactly but I haven't tried Icecat, would be interested to know what your experience is if you try it.

>>39924 Icecat hasn't had a update since June of 2019. Pale Moon is my current browser and I still like it.

I'm browsing this thread with surf from suckless right now, tired of bloated browsers. I'm predicting firefox (which I just -Rs'd) is going to have even more bloat like pings when you're on a conspiracy website, kind of like those warnings of password leaks. Going back to greener fields, surf is actually pretty nice for an imageboard like this. Embeds do not work, not sure if it's a suckless feature or me being ignorant and not installing a package before compilation. But ads do work, because there is no simple and suckless adblocker yet, lol. I am now looking for recommendations for an even simpler and stripped down browser, could be even be a console application, http only, hoping search engines would work on it. Just information and links to downloadable media, no funny business like telemetry, redirection, ads, because that bloat is just not supported. The media I would download with youtube-dl, wget, curl, etc. That is supposed to be the point of web browsing, to find your way to interesting posts (blogs, interesting technology/code/math) which is text file, interesting music which is audio file, interesting movies which is video file. Everything else is a distraction, a curse by web developers. I wouldn't have made this post If I was on firefox, I would be getting distracted by the endless and useless scrolling of the modern web, the only thing it offers. I want my boredom, and thus, my creativity back. I can also upload a picture, can't see thumbnails on it though. It's based on webkit, don't even want to look at the source code, it's probably a complex mess.

>>39936 Manage adblocking with /etc/hosts, as simple as can be. https://surf.suckless.org/files/adblock-hosts/

>>39873 >>39906 Well fuarrrk, I read that expecting the RT screenshot to be bullshit. Wtf Mozilla, you used to be cool. >>39924 I'm in the same boat. I have chrome installed for work-related testing but have otherwise avoided it.

>>39873 >They're not calling for censorship anyone, they're calling on social media corporations to be more transparent No argument there. >and fight disinformation campaigns more actively. ...But then we come right back to the age-old problem of who gets to decide on what is "information" and what is "disinformation".

>>39943 >Manage adblocking with /etc/hosts, as simple as can be. Browser-based adblocking has the advantage of selectively blocking 1st-party content, such as annoying autoplaying videos served from the 1st-party domain. Can't do that with a hosts file.

>>39918 There is a lot more of it. >>39921 That was pretty much my point, the profession should be treated as an expertise, acquired though education. Certification mandatory, revocation on deliberate disinformation.

>>39960 > There is a lot more of it. I would agree that this is probably true, but is there a way to quantify this? I feel there has always been plenty of disinformation in the western world (see: the food pyramid, the war on drugs, the middle east generally), perhaps it is now just more noticeable now that public opinion (including that of nutjobs) is widely available on the internet? >>39924 I was able to install a recent-ish version of ublock origin from their github, it's not listed in palemoons extensions by default but it is working nicely.

>>39959 It doesn't mean you shouldn't use it. I'd rather not load a malicious link than load it and block afterwards.

>>39936 NetSurf: Has its own independent engine and has been in active development since 2007. Dillo: Has its own independent engine but seems to have been abandoned unfortunately. Links: Terminal browser with a graphical mode, image support, and lots of customization. I highly recommend this one if you don't care much about CSS formatting. w3m: Nice terminal browser with image support. Lynx: As some say, "THE" terminal web browser, nice experience if you don't care about image support or formatting.

>>39960 Remember malpractice in the medical field? Your hurdles wont stop anything.

>>39962 I found it too and also found umatrix, foxyproxy, and decentraleyes! The main things I was going to miss, although some of them are slightly older versions. I think palemoon is what I'm going to stick with. It's really a shame about mozilla.. I remember way back when they were a good company and just made a good browser. These woke politics are destroying everything I like..

I use qutebrowser whenever I can. It's just way too comfy to use vim keybinds to navigate the web, and the scripting abilities is a nice addition for it, even though I only use one script to toggle my proxy being either system set or a Tor socks proxy as well as changing my search engine to it's onion mirror. If I can't properly use qutebrowser I use firefox. I'd prefer not giving more power to chromium on the web, which is one of the main things I struggle with using qutebrowser "ethically". >>32467 >>Qutebrowser >How is the performance, considering it uses Python for some things? Very good, haven't noticed any slow downs yet. >>33143 >>many websites don't like Tor users, some block them outright >Never had a problem Don't know what you're browsing but every server wrapped in cloudflare throws a horrible amount of captcha's at you, it's disgusting. >>34409 >Ungoogled Chromium is the answer. Do you build it on every update or get one of their binaries? >>34644 >Qutebrowser vs Surf What is it about Surf that makes people bring it up? >>36953 >startup time is really lagging behind Firefox Same for me. I don't mind at all, though, since I only start it once a day and usually leave it running.

>>32462 >>32464 >>32463 >>32465 >>32466 >>32467 >>32468 >>32469 >>32470 >>32471 >>32472 >>32473 >>32481 >>32519 >>32520 >>32556 >>32561 >>32578 use Librewolf https://librewolf.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

>>40465 Did you figure out how to setup adblockers and some way to delete the cookies and cache after closing? I switched from surf to qutebrowser, I thought that qutebrowser was running smoothly because it used webkit well. I got tricked, qutebrowser actually uses chromium as default.

Do I need to make any more changes after installing IceCat for privacy? Seems pretty secure OOTB but I'd like to be sure.

>>40473 use librewolf https://librewolf.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ >>40474 icecat is pretty unsupported, wouldnt use it if you want addons and soykaf use librewolf, its the same idea and level of privacy and security (both have https everywhere default and ublock) https://librewolf.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

>>40482 You build it in some distro which is not Arch Linux? I liked the idea of this browser.. Im thinking to give a try here, but they are not providing the source for build yet..

>>40482 Too late, I'm trying out Brave for a few months

>>40482 I thought it was some neckbeard soykaf like Palemoon but damn this thing is comfy as fuarrrk

>>40482 Icecat gets updated by its maintainers on Fedora at least.

>>40473 >Did you figure out how to setup adblockers and some way to delete the cookies and cache after closing? I honestly haven't looked into it. I'm sure you'll find something in the config.py if you generate it with default settings. >qutebrowser actually uses chromium as default. yep

Surf is the best browser, if I figure out how to adblock. Qutebrowser has too much python bullshit. Surf is just a frontend, with some switches in the config.h to enable what I want, without being annoyed by all the bullshit like in qutebrowser.

Is it true that Chromium's engine itself (Blink) is spyware? If so, why do people even use it instead of just normal Chrome at that point?

cunnyfox 85 fastest browser for me and you curry niggers told me you cannot just fire useless 400 workers lol

>>40715 I don't know about that, for it to be spyware it has to phone to unknown or make non-permitted connections which you can monitor yourself. So far, ungoogled chromium hasn't let me down but I won't recommend plain chromium or even chrome as it definitely does outrageous stuff. https://lwn.net/Articles/648392/ >casually downloads blob to add a microphone spyware This was the wake-up call and the beginning.

>>33521 >claims Freenet has been solidly pwned >provides reference cite that details how the supposed pwning was based on bad and incorrect math Uhhhh...

>>35582 >>36670 Your problem is that you're trying to make a webapp. That is not what browsers are for. We will all be better off when all the javascript garbage is excised from browsers forever, thus significantly simplifying the software and walking them back from the OS-derivatives they're becoming.

Take the ungoogled pill.

>>40938 Is there any real reason to use Blinkshit instead of Icecat?

>>40710 Posting this from surf as someone whose daily driver is qutebrowser. What makes you prefer surf? It does seem (slightly) more lightweight which is nice but at the same time I miss the ez adblocking and keyboard commands of qutebrowser. ctrl+g is nice in surf but I find myself wishing there was an "open in new window" option like shift+o in qute. That and a command to copy the current url. That aside, you have any recommended settings I should tinker for surf? Aside from adblock of course.

>>40939 Besides the fact they hardly update the thing?

>>40942 I'm on Fedora and it's on the latest ESR release.

>>40940 Giving qutebrowser a shot again. One question. How do I make the sound work with ALSA? Are all browsers chained to pulseaudio (which I uninstalled because it's so bad)? Going to kill myself over these browsers, they are all bad.

>>40972 This stupid thing with the audio not working with ALSA, and the annoying vim soykaf like pressing I to write the help I need into the search engine. The headache is getting stronger now.

>>40972 Also ctrl-q for exit being right next to ctrl-w to close tab and me closing the entire thing when I just wanted to get a tab closed. The headache is getting really strong now.

>>40972 The browser not working seems to be chromium stupidity, I don't know. I'm just using apulse to get audio on these chrome based browsers, but not on qutebrowser. It pretends to be minimal but it's just a mess, and the default keybinds just make me want to uninstall instead of bothering to change them. And all the python stuff in it is for nothing, because I can't make it work at all.