Alternative browsers you like

There used to be a browser thread but it got full a while ago and I cant find it anymore what does lain think of lesser known browsers that aren't chrome or firefox? I personally like vivaldi since it has a lot of cool features like adblocking, speed dial, tree style tabs, and customization.(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST, Please elaborate on your opinions in future, please discuss what you actually want to discuss in a browser, why you like what browsers you like ? what you use browsers for ? etc ....)

I've been using qutebrowser for awhile. I like how compact and easy it is to use and it's lot faster than surf and all the other minimalist browsers I've tried. adblocking and lack of fingerprint protection is definitely an issue though, but one I can live with.

Literally every browser will get some sh­illing by the time we're done, so may as well get this one (+Adguard) out of the way

>>48797 d­r­a­t­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

I wish I could default to this one, especially if there were some way to set it up with a proportional font. But even as it is I love it a lot.

Only available for Mac but Omniweb was fastest on every benchmark tests I ran and pasted every rendering test 100% and a built in ad blocker (though not perfect). It's broken now where you can't access websites because the certificates aren't updating or something iirc. Probably a way to fix that but i havent gotten around it.

>>48764 Also been on QuBr a while, really like it alot. Used VimFX before the firefox addon armageddon (dont get along with Vimium or the other ones). Nice to know you're on stable ground that won't disappear from underneath you. Only gripe I have with it is that it's kinda a bother to change what keys do, at least with the on-the-fly command. Then you have to look up what the key executes, then write your own version of that with wanted changes. E.g. changing how much a j-press scrolls. Would be much nicer if the key-edit actually grabbed what's already stored for it and let you edit that, rather than start afresh and have to look things up elsewhere. Since most often you don't want a total reassignment, just an adjustment of what it already does.

I use Palemoon because it's like Firefox if Mozilla weren't disgusting sellout scumbags.

>>48829 Pale Moon has no sandbox, is based on extremely outdated Firefox code, and supports XUL which was removed because it presents a huge security risk. There is no adblocking or automatic upgrading to HTTPS. The start page contains questionable ads. Pale Moon is a security and privacy nightmare and should be avoided at all costs. You are better off hardening Firefox for privacy.

>>48837 >XUL which was removed because it presents a huge security risk Still using glorious XUL extensions, still having a glorious browser experience. And my adblockers and HTTPS everywhere extensions work just fine. Stay mad, Mozilla apologists.

Falkon is okay, I guess. Qt based and runs well, comes with adblock, and has no telemetry. Basically a good browser for a layman like me.

>>48837 >Pale Moon has no sandbox >is based on extremely outdated Firefox code While true to an extent, the lead developer of palemoon seems to have some knowledge of security in mind. I've read over some of his posts about the lack of e10s (multiprocessing) which is the component which the sandbox is built around and he states "palemoon has all the sandboxing it needs, just not the horribly implemented e10s ones." While I still don't know where I stand on the palemoon debate, security is not of my concern when it comes to the browser, the better criticism of it is that it doesn't support almost ANY modern JavaScript, including Google WebComponents, which gimps lots of modern sites.

>>48760 Gave up on Firefox and derivates and moved on to ungoogled-chromium. Best security, more features than Firefox (PWA support especially), and no tracking. What better than that?

>>48871 Ungoogled chromium isn't secure. It does not automatically update and there is no single distributor. Since the binaries aren't reproducible, anyone can insert malware into chromium. Would you trust some stranger over Google? Ungoogled Chromium removes many security features like safebrowsing, which is necessary to protect users from dangerous websites. Consider using Google Chrome instead. Chrome is open source + Google.

>>48892 >Consider using botnet sure

>>48892 Bot tier answer. What the actual fuarrrk? >It does not automatically update and there is no single distributor. Automatic updates can be a vector for malware and malicious features added by the developers. Opaque binaries =/= security. >Since the binaries aren't reproducible Simple, use Guix. >Would you trust some stranger over Google? Every day. Google is some stranger. >Ungoogled Chromium removes many security features like safebrowsing, which is necessary to protect users from dangerous websites. If you have common sense you don't need "safe browsing", also "safe browsing" sends the addresses you visit to Google so it's a spyware feature. >Chrome is open source + Google. It isn't. Chromium is open source + Google's binary blobs, Chrome is entirely proprietary.

>>48892 >Consider using G*gle Chr*me instead

>>48892 Your arguments are as retarded as "amen and awomen". Anti-vaxxers and flat earthers have came up with better soykaf than you have. Even my autistic five year old is smarter than you. fuarrrk off, retard.

I use SeaMonkey because I like how it's set up. It tries to be a cohesive internet suite, and it works out for me. There are problems, but I haven't found a reason to switch. The only other browser I have is Chromium, and I only keep it around for rare occasions.

>>48903 SeaMonkey is so underrated. I wish more people would have used it.

anyone else here /nyxt/ gang? >written entirely in common lisp >engine-agnostic; has bindings for webkit and experimental bindings for blink >the emacs of browsers without GNU autism https://github.com/atlas-engineer/nyxt/

>>48910 I tried using it but it was quite buggy. Did it get any better? Also does it have any security/privacy features or extensions?

>>48912 It got a 2.0 release not too long ago and has improved a lot. It's still a bit rough sometimes and it's also still a new enough project that there aren't a lot of extensions, but if you know common lisp it's really easy to contribute or write extensions since you can just start a repl server in the init file and connect to it in SLIME. Their 2.0 release post has information on privacy/security features that come stock with the browser: https://nyxt.atlas.engineer/article/release-2.0.0.org If you don't know common lisp you wouldn't get as much out of it, but given how limited one's choices are for browsers these days, Nyxt is the only browser I know of that is doing anything interesting in this respect since as I said above it's designed to not be tied to any specific engine. So I think that makes it very much worth adopting and contributing code to.

>>48916 I only know Guile but Common Lisp won't be much different I guess. I can give it a try again, considering Firefox decomposes and Icecat is on maintenance rather than active development.

>>48903 I LOVE SeaMonkey, I just wish they would team up with the PaleMoon devs and keep XUL alive. SeaMonkey will die as soon as they release the new 2.57 based on Firefox ESR 60.

I like qutebrowser a lot, its very comfy. I'm happy to see a lot of others like it too!

>>48826 Why not use LibreWolf instead?

>>48964 Because Librewolf is slower to update than Firefox, does not automatically update, and is developed by a small team which cannot keep up with Mozilla's updates. Never use forks of browsers. Stick with the main updated browsers Chromium and Firefox.

>>48964 Assuming you're asking because supposedly you can still use old addons on it (I'm not aware if this is the case), I don't see the point of switching from a browser with keyboard-focused interaction baked into its very core back to just an addon hack solution.

>>48855 I think it also supports flash games which I somehow used at some point. Modern chrome+forks I think stopped supporting flash maybe due to LSO/permanent flash cookies which could get them into trouble once the privacy laws find out they've been doing it for years, although the new soykaff in town is DOM cache/data which is somehow permanent last I checked my profile folders. >>48869 Pale moon is okay I think. They enforced tls 1.2/1.3 earlier which broke a lot of mainstream websites that are guilty of even using weak soykaf ciphers, they even were the first to remove some insecure ciphers while browsers took 3 or something major versions before they disabled them instead of just having the webadmins deal with their incompetence. Meanwhile Firefox, et. al. literally re-enabled ssl v3 so people could use insecure sslv3 for zoom meetings during lockdowns so I guess it's one reason why there's so much company data leaks and enterprise ransomware around the world right now. >it doesn't support almost ANY modern JavaScript, including Google WebComponents, which gimps lots of modern sites. Even Firefox can't keep up with every new Google Web standards and pale moon admits it too when they're implementing JS engines and other stuff. >>48892 YMMV, even a outdated air-gapping system is much more secure than an updated one. Chances are if you even live in compromised places/warzones you have more chance of getting Eternalblue/similar or some USB/HDD firmware malware (direct-memory access ports or wireless magic). >Consider using Google Chrome instead. Chrome is open source + Google. https://lwn.net/Articles/648392/ And, that's just with debian's chromium, mind you. Also watch that youtube video of some guy saying he wanted some red dog toy and then got an ad literally about it, then he said his wife's boyfriend or something and got nintendo switch and soylent recomendation (hecking soykaf hahaha). Shiz was gold.

>>48892 Came here to post this. #1 for a reason. I just wish it was offered through the App Store. I try to use the store for as much software as I can manage – I love not having to worry about malicious, dysfunctional, or outdated software. And everything's compliant with macOS human interface guidelines to boot! But I guess Apple and Google aren't on the friendliest terms...

>>48764 plus one for qutebrowser. I've been using it as my standard webbrowser and am faster than any other bloated browser,which would need a ton of plugins to achieve qutebrowser functionality.

I use iceweaseluxp because it's just basilisk without spyware, nonfree branding, and drm.

>>48892 Why not just use Brave? I trust them more than Google.

>>48760 Take the qutebrowser pill, it's fuarrrking amazin. light fast, compatible. >>48764 You aware there is a python wrapper of the brave adblock for qutebrowser since 2.0

>>49086 Does basilisk have spyware? Or are you referring to Firefox's spyware? If basilisk has spyware I may need to reconsider life choices.

>>49149 Basilisk has drm and was created by the same furry user behind pale moon.

>>49195 What DRM does Basilisk have?

>>48760 Even though it's a Firefox derivative: the Tor Browser. It's well-hardened, so you could use it even it the clearnet (network.proxy.socks_port -> either 0 (in about:config) or -1 (in either about:config or prefs.js)). Just remember good OPSEC.

>>49207 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 also disable letterboxing to get fullscreen: lockPref("privacy.resistFingerprinting.letterboxing", false); To stop automatic connections to torproject.org: lockPref("app.update.auto", false); lockPref("app.update.enabled", false); lockPref("app.update.url.details", ""); lockPref("app.update.url.manual", ""); Unfortunately you still have to block firefox.settings.services.mozilla.com with your hosts file because deleting it in prefs.js/about:config does nothing.

>>49363 Thanks for the clarification. Much appreciated.

>>49363 What exactly does firefox.settings.services.mozilla.com do. I've always seen it in my network logs when using firefox, but since it only seems to run on startup I just thought it was some "recommended for your system" settings soykaf where it has to reference a database or something. Is it bad?

>>48892 Anyone who reacted negatively to this post is below 125 IQ and can't into high levels of memeposting.

>>49198 I assume he is referring to Google widevine?

>>48903 >>48908 >>48918 Take a look at Iceape-UXP :)

>>48967 This is retarded. Never use forks of browsers! That's why I still use netscape instead of firefox.

>>49376 >Firefox Monitor warns you if your online accounts were involved in a known data breach. >To get the latest login breach information and more, Firefox connects to firefox.settings.services.mozilla.com https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-stop-firefox-making-automatic-connections

>>49414 I sadly can't get Iceape to build, I guess its easier if you use Hyperbola or whatever.

>>48892 8/8 b8 m8. Got a good chuckle

>>48971 librewolf is firefox with a custom user.js and a couple well-known patches. It's barely different.

Here is an idea. What if Lainchan made a browser?

>>49444 Depends on what organization happened, if it is like the imageboard codebase, I would get not very many patches and lots of bug reports. Writing a browser is hard because it is made up of many different things, including networking libraries, GUI, JavaScript execution engine, HTML Render, CSS Render, insert other protocol renders for images and multimedia here, etc. I mentioned using Konqueror in the previous browser thread, because it used mechanisms to allow you to choose which rendering engines you used as a configuration option.

>>49430 Maybe try BlueGorilla? https://github.com/djames1/BlueGorilla

>>49386 I can't believe I nearly fell for it.

>>49445 You'd probably get more pull requests if lainchan wasn't stuck with a soykafty PHP spaghetti code engine with zero documentation, applelad t. Former vichan admin

>>48855 Unfortunately it seems like it's abandonware now.

>>49460 Thank you for this. I had no idea this project existed. Looks really cool.

>>49363 www.torproject.org is also hardcoded, you will need to use hosts for it

Been messing around with K-MeleonG for the past hour or so, I've got to say I'm quite impressed. The privacy bar is the closest I've seen a browser integrating something like uMatrix although it's not quite on the same level. Liking the extension system too. A shame something like this is not on Linux.

>>49676 Kmeleon is abandoned. Do not use it.

>>49472 yah, tf happened to the project? what is kde doing that made them unable to release an update?. I really like tha browser, even javascript seems ok.

>>48760 Vivaldi is actually good?

As for Pale Moon, it's an okayish web browser, but after the infected downloads server fiasco, and after how they approached the OpenBSD devs, I'm no longer interested in this browser. Also, Pale Moon's lead dev acts like he is the source of the truth for every fuarrrking aspect of life. And that guy Tobin, ehh... he lives in his own world, not gonna waste more keystrokes on him. Their actions actively discourage me from using their browser again.

I would really love to use NetSurf. It's lightweight and runs on pretty much any system. Unfortunately, it: >doesn't support all of CSS AFAIK >doesn't support JavaScript >doesn't support SOCKS >has no proxy.pac (so I can't browse both clearnet and darknet sites on it) >and, of course, no addons like adblock or HTTPS everywhere It really tempts me to learn some C and read up on the standards just so I can help them. Qutebrowser is neat as well (even though it mostly reuses Chromium and Brave's adblock). Certainly better than pure Chromium or Firefox. >>49962 Indeed, the devs are absolute glitterboys: https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/browsers.html#palemoon

>>48903 I grew up using Sea Monkey as my main browser as a kid, good soykaf.

imagine using anything but google chrome in 2021. Google chrome is the world's most trusted, reliable browser.

>>49962 Pale moon is for retro users who still haven't gotten over old furrycocks from 2004-2014. It is an unmaintainable nightmare which will die soon. The old internet and old web browsers are not coming back. Chrome is the standard. Get over it. I don't like Chrome and I think it's UI is trash but there isn't anything I can do about it. I just have to accept that Google is the internet.

>>50037 Thank you for your input, fellow real lainchan user who is not being paid by Google to market on tech imageboards

>>50058 >Chrome is the standard. Get over it. I literally browse everything on firefox (librewolf) no problem. And the things that don't work are because they are disabled in about:config for privacy reasons. Sure, it's not entirely google free, but for the most part I have a browsing experience that doesn't buy into the google ecosystem and can run majority of sites perfectly. I only very rarely use ungoogled chromium for testing stuff to see if it works well on both browsers.

>>48892 What the fuarrrk bro, chrome is actual spyware, I understand where you are coming from but the better recommendation is brave for a BALANCE of privacy and security

>>50074 0.00005 BAT has been deposited into your account

>>50058 > I just have to accept that Google is the internet. And here, ladies & gentlemen, is exactly why the world has become the way it has. Sometimes you have to try be the change you want to see in the world...

>>50074 Chrome is spyware, but Brave is even worse. It's a bitcoin miner & it gives your info away to everyone for free. Chrome has built in protection against a lot of trackers that everyone just seems to ignore, Brave goes out of its way to send *more* info to them.

>>50097 No, Chrome is much worse than Brave. Chrome has little tracking protection compared to Brave and Firefox. Brave's cryptocurrency is optional and users do not have to use brave rewards or uphold. Google collects far more data than Brave does.

>>50098 Brave literally injected referral codes into people's links. fuarrrk off with recommending malware soykaf

>>50211 I never recommended Brave. Quit making assumptions, glitterboy. The referral codes was fixed over a year ago and no longer inserts referral codes. Google is part of PRISM, Brave is not. Brave is not the best browser, but it is better than Google Chrome.

>>50226 >Google is part of PRISM, Google with crypto is not. The thing about brave is that the same day google would stop development of chrome, Brave would die. Installing few blockers on top of chorme (+crypto) and changing the GUI isn't not buying into the google ecosystem. While i'm not gonna say it's a bad browser. I might as well get the same , if not better, experience by installing few addons on ungoogled chromium.

>>50228 >The thing about brave is that the same day google would stop development of chrome, Brave would die. Google won't stop development of chrome anytime soon, and if they did, so would Ungoogled chromium, or actually, ungoogled chromium is far more likely to die on it's own than Brave since it's developed by a few people who couldn't maintain chrome even if they wanted to, and the versions are outdated which means it's slow to update, misses important security features, and is worse for security than Brave. >Installing few blockers on top of chorme (+crypto) and changing the GUI isn't not buying into the google ecosystem. Removing a few connections to google isn't not buying into the google ecosystem. At least Brave has adblocking by default, whereas Ungoogled chromium has no protection, and since addons aren't supported, you'll have to use a third-party extension in order to download and update other extensions. >I might as well get the same , if not better, experience by installing few addons on ungoogled chromium. If by better you mean less secure, then yes. I might as well get a better experience by installing those same addons and using privacyfools.io's recommended settings on Firefox. fuarrrk even Brave browser is better than Ungoogled chromium. If anything I'd use lynx or w3m.

>>50226 >>50097 just use firefox instead of retardedly arguing about which malware is worse

>>50244 Just use librewolf or Palemoon if you don't want malware. Both are forks of a non chomium browser with all known Telemetry disabled

>>50426 Pale Moon is a fork of a non chromium browser * that is based on legacy code which has been outdated for many years * that has no proper sandboxing * that uses legacy extensions which have been abandoned for years * has a questionable start page and has other telemetry and spyware * does not work on many websites Pale Moon is a security, privacy, and usability nightmare. It is the WORST option for privacy. I would recommend Google Chrome and Brave over Pale Moon or any other outdated fork of Chrome or Firefox.

soykaf thread but going to contribute anyway I like Badwolf because it isn't forked from chromium or firefox, is more minimal than both of those browsers, is not spyware, and has javascript disabled by default. I don't use browsers for a lot of things like watching videos (I have MPV for that), reading news (rss), or playing games (we don't need browser games). I only use it for forums like lainchan and for browsing websites like the ones on neocities and wiby.

they're all garbage the literal only viable option today is an outdated fork of firefox from 10-20 years ago CURRENT_YEAR browsers of any form are completely unusable. this includes CURRENT_YEAR engine with muh open source """minimalist""" gui wrapper. firefox does not even work anymore on non-gamer hardware. it has had the same bug for years now where you open a link and it opens in the tab you switch to. and im sure thats just the tip of the iceberg but i dont use it so i wouldnt know

>>50506 >an outdated fork of Firefox from 10-20 years ago did you mean Pale Moon?

>>50506 >it has had the same bug for years now where you open a link and it opens in the tab you switch to. and im sure thats just the tip of the iceberg but i dont use it so i wouldnt know That's literally a toggle setting. Try harder. >firefox does not even work anymore on non-gamer hardware Well soykaf, I didn't know 1G RAM 1core VMs counted as gamer hardware.

top tier - tor browser placebo autism tier - unjewgled chromium, librewulf, pale meme, basilisk botnet tier - jewgle chrome, furryfucks, msedge, safari, opera, brave, vivaldi lonely manchild tier - all other browsers

>>50001 Does your sound output work well? I used Seamonkey before, But I quit cuz it can't output any sound.

I love qutebrowser. Highly recommend. Really annoys me when people like Luke Smith (and his cult followers) dismiss qutebrowser because it's written in python. The web engine itself is written in c/c++, which is of course what drives the loading of webpages. Besides, why must your webpage be loaded quickly? Half a second at most and then you spend minutes on the page. You're not losing time. As far as being light on resources, qutebrowser could be lighter but it's pretty darn good for what you're getting, and is much lighter than firefox and chromium. I'm happy to be donating to tthe developer of qutebrower. It's really pleasing to see new features added to the browser and performance increase, being part of a very impressive and yet still promising project.

>>51985 Did luke smith actually say that or are you morely meaning random people on the internet? For all his talk of bloat he seems to accept some (he uses ghc, he shi||s ranger which is python based). I do like some of his content, but the newer stuff is worse. I do think the idea that webpages loading slow is fine is weird since sometimes sites will force you through a form that is multiple pages or sites will encourage forked browsing (e.g. this site, reddit etc.) and having that be slow can be painful, though I agree it's not super important. How is playback in the browser? You mentioned it's a bit heavy on resources, how is it relative to firefox or chrome?

>>51985 >oh luke smith is soykafting on qutebrowser for using python >he must be one of those suckless zealot types that's running surf or luakit or .... >oh never mind he's sh!lling brave instead why must /g/ types turn everything into a banal fashion statement?

>>51989 He actually said that. It's on his blog. Also he now uses lf, which is literally worse than ranger. I use nnn, but I'm totally cool with ranger as well. What I'm saying about slightly slower load times being okay is just that there is at most a fraction of a second of difference between qutebrowser load times and chromium load times, and I have never needed to open and load dozens of pages as fast as possible. Personally I can't really tell how playback is because I have a good computer, however my thinkpad is able to play videos in it fine. Sometimes the fan does kick in, though. Video conferences work great on it. >>51990 The worst part about his objection to qutebrowser is he says that the fact it's written in python means it's not going to cut it for all the old people who have 250 tabs open, but *completely ignores* the fact that it's a keyboard driven browser with vim like keybindings that are accessible to everyone but vim users. Since when does a browser that doesn't suck need to be usable by my grandmother? They can keep using google chrome, who cares.

>>51990 Because he's an anarcho-monarchist traditionalist christian (yes really) linguistics major that doesn't actually know anything about computers and spouts retarded soykaf on the internet about software minimalism and being a real independent man while working in academia and living on his uncle's land as a side hobby to feed his ego. He's a perfect example of what happens when a mediocre slightly above average intelligence person falls for a huge number of memes at once, The super basic videos he did at the start were good, muttwizard was cool I guess, but the rest goes directly into the garbage Hi Luke, how's your bot doing?

>>51985 Qutebrowser is also the best browser from an ideological standpoint. >no ties to Google >no ties to Mozilla >no ties to Apple >the developer isn't a furry

>>51996 Qutebrowser uses Webkit/Blink, so it is ties to Google and Apple. The best browser from an ideological standpoint is lynx.

>>52059 I like text based browsers. I still use w3m-img on my desktop for common web surfing. But modern websites are dependent on JavaScript for bloated features. So if I need to use chromium when a website which anything can't be an alternative of this is required JS.

>>52059 How do you retards continue to get ths wrong? Every god damn time. Qutebrowser does not use webkit or blink. It uses qtwebengine.

>>52170 ...and QtWebEngine uses what?

>>52082 I hadn't tried w3m before. I do have to say that I like it. The only text based browser I was familiar with before was lynx.

>>52170 What? I remember QtWebengine == blink which is developed a part of chromium project.

>>52171 not fuarrrking webkit

>>48764 it now uses the brave adblock that work fine except in youtube videos, but there are userscripts to address that. Though you should use mpv or proxy yt to invidious anyway. I'm quite happy with qutebrowser. Thr only criticism I have is the startup time, other than that it's pretty fast and doesn't consume much memory.

>>52170 blink and qtwebengine arent the same category of thing. the latter adapts the former into a library that can be built upon by other software, but you cant replace qtwebengine with blink. so anything that uses qtwebengine necessarily also uses blink. qutebrowser does offer an alternative backend, but that alternative is qtwebkit, so really you're wrong on both counts.

>>51985 Luke Smith is a retarded glitterboy who shiIIs brave. Don't listen to anything he says.

>>51994 >Also he now uses lf, which is literally worse than ranger how so? not trying to contradict you, im just curious because ive found lf to be a nice compromise between nnn and ranger. >>51995 i mostly agree with this, particularly the bit about falling for too many memes at once. a lot of his choices are clearly made on the basis of identity and he has an obnoxious tendency to frame things that way ("you dont want to be a [b|d|c|z|cons]o o mer who uses [somewhat popular keyboard driven linux software], you should instead sig nal your discerning taste by using [slightly feature-limited reimplementation of aforementioned software which is written in C]"). this isnt to say hes always wrong, or even usually wrong. truthfully i tend to agree with him more often than not, and while i dont use any of his scripts directly, they have given me good ideas that ive adapted for my own scripts... but "prefers software which is written in C" shouldnt be a foundational pillar of one's identity.

I'm using iridium rn since ungoogled-chromium is a pain to install on OpenBSD since a few of the python tools included in the release dont work (xzcat has to be piped into tar, for instance) and patches.py doesn't work for multiple reasons. Once I get it up, I'll probably compile my work into an openbsd specific method of building and make it run more like surf/qutebrowser and have a few functionalities based off the browser extensions I have (ppossum, ublock-orgin, noscript, decentraleyes, userscript changer, onetab). Making it all work properly might be a bitch though.

>>52971 Iridium browser is dead and all the addons you use except ublock origin are redundant.

>>52974 Decentraleyes and OneTab target totally different use cases than uBlock Origin. So it's not "all the addons" that are redundant here.

I use dissenter because it's not made by stupid commie lefties that want us to sell all our data to chinese spies, also because said browsers often steal IPs and patented technologies from hard-working corporations.

>>52974 I really dont give a sh!t if it's dead and idk how ppossum and a user-agent switcher are the same thing. I did switch from noscript to umatrix, but I kept ublock because it does a lot of the work for me at a cost I can take

>>52977 I was going to write an actual response to this but then I realised at the last moment it was a troll post after remembering dissenter browser is a fork of brave which is a fork of google Well done trol

I'd like to switch from firefox to otter browser since it's less bloated and has all the options such as disabling JS, cookies, history, in a graphical user interface (unlike qutebrowser or luakit which only has a config file), and there is a basic adblocker, but it doesn't appear to be updated often so it's probably a security nightmare. As much as I hate it, I should probably use google chrome.

How's Icecat looking these days? I haven't used it in a couple of years due to development being slow as soykaf.

>>53454 It's pretty good for me. My favorite and main browser. I trust it enough that I feel comfortable and away from privy eyes. I still added privacy possum because I've used it so much, it's a habit. It can be awkward to post on chans at first. Something about icecat sending invalid http referers. I can't remember the specific to fix it, but I think it has to do with their "Https-Everywhere" option. All i remember is that i fiddled in the options and got it to work at some point. They recently updated icecat to Firefox's 91.3.0 version. (Like, 12 days since posting)

>>53454 Binaries are no longer updated and even when compiled from source it's still not as good as librewolf because of the addons installed. I used to use Icecat since it was in Void's repositories but ever since they removed it I've been using firefox instead. Void maintainers hate chrome and firefox forks and won't package any of them, so you're pretty much stuck using either chromium or firefox (or some obscure hipster browser like qutebrowser or netsurf).

>>53463 >librewolf I've considered switching from icecat to librewolf a few times. what are the differences between the two? (other than libre being more maintained and up to date.)

>>53461 >They recently updated icecat to Firefox's 91.3.0 version Well seems like I'm about to give good old icecat a try again. >>53463 >>53464 I too have considered librewolf, but I've been told time and time again there's no point if you're using hardened firefox. Does anyone else really miss pale moon being a decent alternative?

>>53497 >Does anyone else really miss pale moon being a decent alternative? Works great for me, not sure what there is to "miss".

>>53497 Yes, but that's just how life is. All alternatives to chrome and furrycuks will eventually fall. Basilisk, Otter, Qutebrowser, Luakit, Netsurf, Badwolf, Nyxt, and even Librewolf, will all die, and when they do, we'll all have to use chrome.

>>53502 >we'll all have to use chrome I'll just stop using a web browser then.

>>53464 librewolf is basically firefox with some patches and a custom user.js , so updates are usually quicker. >>53502 as long as there is such a thing as free software there will be such a thing as free browsers. So you're basically saying that the fight for software freedom is doomed to eventual failure.

>>53517 Based. We'll be all using TTY/CLI based browsers when the time comes.

>>53500 Back when the palemoon forum spergfest was more tolerable and they weren't as actively berating their users. There really isn't a perfect out the box browser that gets out of the mozilla/jewgle axiom we're stuck in.

>>53502 I don't think you understand how chromium is structured as a project. All chromium based browsers automatically have the work that is done for chromium. Even more nuanced, qutebrowser uses qt5-webengine, which is a project where the qt dev team goes through chromium commits and takes all the parts except for google specific features and other things. In fact, qutebrowser will be detected as "chrome" for many sites. Even though your point stands with for the monopolization of chromium, the forks are big enough to contest chrome itself. Google could shut the development of chromium itself and keep everything proprietary, but that will be the best moment for a competitor to take its role.

My favorite is lynx, actually using it to post here

>>53599 >mozilla/jewgle axiom LOL! Mozilla are nothing but Google's yes men so they can push their soykaf "features" into the W3C standards. It's been that way for years, but they've all but dropped the facade since they downsized their development teams. The real players are Apple and Google.

Since this is the browser thread, what's a Firefox alternative with userchrome and gtk theme support? Lepton fixed padding and context menu problem but everything still looks rounded and soykafty

>>54338 Firefox, because Firefox has all those things.

>>53570 >Browsh is different in that it's backed by a real browser, namely headless Firefox nice tty/cli based browser retardo

The best alternative to Google Chrome is Chromium

I love qutebrowser, and I don't have much hate towards python, the amount of fuarrrking dependencies and python libraries it uses is pretty disappointing. On OpenBSD it requires 200 packages. Does anyone have any experience with more minimal vim-like browsers with hinting? haven't looked much into vimb and luakit, surf looks unviable.

>>54455 On void it installs less than 150, and that's on fresh base install with zfs, no Xorg or anything. Package count doesn't mean anything anyway, not sure why you are bothered.

I'am trying to use Brave but I also use Firefox as it has more convenient profiles with network settings. Also I use Tor Browser a lot and recommend it.

I ended up just trying a fuarrrkton of browsers but I couldn't get away from chromium based soykaf in the end I am happily using ungoogled chromium with a adblocker installed and not being a retard on the net firefox is slowly just getting less and less attention besides its 500th "privacy" browser being made while yes firefox is worse on a base security standpoint if the user isn't a retard it wont matter much in the end just don't use a bloated fork and you will be fine with the net

>>54458 attack surface, storage space. i'm not bothered perse, just wanting to see if there are alternatives.

>>54455 Nyxt. I just like it :) https://github.com/atlas-engineer/nyxt

Avoid forks of browsers. They all lag behind upstream days between releases (just one day behind can be a critical security issue) and some forks such as ungoogled chromium and librewolf do not automatically update. Both of those forks are developed by small teams who cannot possibly keep up with the evolving web standards. The only fork I can recommend is Tor browser, but know that Tor is probably dangerous and shouldn't be used by most people. Otherwise, stick with the main browsers: Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox. https://qua3k.github.io/ungoogled/

>>55380 Wow so the choice is between gargling Google's cum or gargling the cum of their controlled opposition.

>>53461 IceCat spoofs Referrers by default. This is the only rare breakage to IceCat's about:config I have found. If IceCat breaks CSRF stuff on sites, then unspoof Referrers and privatize them to send less data: network.http.referer.spoofSource false network.http.referer.XOriginTrimmingPolicy 2

>>55380 No. Youre crafting that for ignorants and beginners. Emphasize that browsers are highly important, should be of recent vintage, and must have uBlock Origin. Your "critical security issue" is a rare Soufflé De Rien Du Tout. Privacy issues are 24/7 for every page, every site, every 3rd party network request, thats more immediate, and necessary to mitigate. Users here are Power Users, and the cons of a privatized fork can be managed effectively without mainstream product. A fork can be used until development halts, and a suitable replacement can be found. Grokking into about:config manually is thenceforward power over any and all Firefox-based browsers, regardless of version.

"Important: Development on the Basilisk browser has been suspended as of December 2021. Genuinely interested developers may want to consider taking over this project; for more details please go to the relevant thread in the Basilisk forum board." https://basilisk-browser.org/

This soykaf is the bee's knees' tits if you tried surf and like it, https://github.com/jonbakke/boredserf

>>49445 no, it's hard because the web is a massive de facto standard (lol more like organism) and you literally wont be able to run any popular website unless you have the right set of quirks and deviations from the spec. also because the spec grows every day. also because you need to deviate from random parts of the spec that shouldn't have security implications yet do since the security of websites rely on random bullshit to be a certain way (for instance it would be a critical vuln if a browser allowed posting arbitrary content types from a pure HTML form) not that you would know any of this as a PHP developer

>>55477 t. zero reading comprehension Damn! As much as I love watching someone's IQ drop about 30 degrees so they can do some kind of "ebin pwned" post (while ending up looking retarded), I'd rather you take your nonsense to a different website.

>>54354 ngl I just picked the first thing that popped up on duckduckgo lmao

Alternative browsers aren't secure. I just use a hardened Google Chrome /w ublock origin and chrome flags. It's much better for privacy than Pale Meme or Furrycocks.

Librewolf. It is like Firefox, but I don't have to do extra work to insure that my browser isn't spying on me. Plus, it comes with some cool little privacy assuring OOBE options.

>>56973 Librewolf does not automatically update and lags behind upstream Firefox days every release. OCSP querying and safebrowsing are disabled by default. Librewolf does not add any privacy which cannot be added into Firefox with Arkenfox user.js. Firefox is not secure and should not be used by anyone. Avoid forks of browsers, as they lag behind upstream browsers and are developed by small communities which lack the resources to maintain increasingly complex web browsers. These developers should be contributing to the Chromium project instead of developing their own browsers, and Mozilla should drop Firefox and become a research company. Most people should use Google Chrome. Those who wish to have privacy can disable telemetry in chrome://flags (Chrome's about:config), use a VPN, and install uBlock Origin. https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/ https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.html

>>56977 I know it's a hot meme to post Madaidan's arguements but I'll say safebrowsing literally just sends data to Google. If you want to avoid sketch sites sure it works there's your security, but allowing that data to be sent to another server that can also get hacked at any time doesn't seem very secure to me.

>>56989 Google has never had a security breach. They are a trusted company.

>>56749 Damn ur glowing like crazy

I think we all need to understand. You don't get to decide. You don't get to choose how your browser looks and how it functions. The browser developers do. It's their browser. They can decide everything for you. You use their browser, you abide by their rules. If they don't want you installing certain extensions, you must obey and respect their decision without question. People do not use Google Chrome because they like it. People use it because that is what is available. Chrome is the standard web browser and the only secure browser, and all websites are designed to work only on Chrome. If you want to access a certain website, you must use the Chrome browser, not Firefox or Netsurf. Chrome is a reasonably private browser once you've turned off any telemetry and enable uBlock Origin. While it is lacking in some areas such as tracking protection, the benefits of using Chrome over any other browser far outweigh these risks. Chrome's site isolation, safebrowsing, timely updates, and numerous other security features that no other browser has or can compete with, makes Chrome the most trusted and secure browser. Manifest V3 is good for security as it limits what browser extensions can do, but for maximum security and privacy, it is strongly advised never to install any extensions onto your browser. This can weaken site isolation, enable third-party programs to collect your data, and make your fingerprint unique. Open source is not associated with privacy and security. It is simply another release model. Anyone can run Chrome through mitmproxy or wireshark to monitor the connections Google Chrome makes. Developers are not obligated to release the source code of the browser and in a way, this is actually more secure as it prevents hackers from distributing and modifying their software. I believe Google's decision to not release the source code for Chrome is justified. Google Chrome will always be the first browser to receive new security features and updates which is a huge thing. For this reason, forks such as Brave, Vivaldi, Ungoogled Chromium, and Hexavalent will never be as secure. I believe Firefox should abandon their browser and contribute to Chromium, and I believe that the developers of Ungoogled Chromium should drop their browser and become a research collective to improve the privacy of Google Chrome. A browser monopoly is good for the privacy and security of everyone. Thanks to Google's focus on security that Microsoft lacked, and the evolving web standards that create new features, and Cloudflare's DDOS protection to protect websites from Tor/VPN users, the internet is better than ever!

>>56997 this is entirely false. google has been hacked a few times that we know about.

>>56997 >>57021 SSL added and removed here Present Day, Present Time! AHAHAHAHAHA!

>>57019 >You don't get to decide Maybe YOU don't but I do. One browser that hasn't been mentioned yet is edbrowse. Yes, that ed, the Standard Ed-itor. Edbrowse was built with blind users in mind but that's not to say it can't be interesting or useful to the rest of us. It doesn't quite follow the 'unix philosophy' in that it has a little bit of feature sprawl, builtin mail client for instance, but it is generally well put together and is surprisingly functional, once you get over the initial learning curve.

>>57019 Why would you put so much effort into such an obvious piece of bait? Is this a reddit copypasta or something? Unless you really believe this drivel... but, nobody could really be so stupid, could they?

>>57019 Slightly based post, one big thing though is that Chrome is not that different from Chromium which is open source, so your closed source = more secure thing here isn't backed up this example. https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/refs/heads/main/docs/chromium_browser_vs_google_chrome.md / https://github.com/chromium/chromium/blob/master/docs/chromium_browser_vs_google_chrome.md

>>48764 >adblocking and lack of fingerprint protection is definitely an issue though, but one I can live with. use this https://sebsauvage.net/wiki/doku.php?id=dns-blocklist-en#linux_macosx the scrip will agregate many block lists in your /etc/hosts crontab it and browse I love the custom search engines so much

>>57036 Chromium does not automatically update. A linux distro's update manager isn't really secure since the distro maintainers must update the package before delivering updates to the entire userbase, whereas a centralized package manager like Snap allows updates to be delivered more quickly. Chromium does not enable the sandbox by default. This depends on the linux distribution. Chromium allows distributions to modify the source code of the browser and possibly insert spyware or ads for profit whereas Google Chrome does not. Chromium does not have official binaries. Anyone can release a fake version of Chromium with malware. The Woolyss builds of Chromium are not to be trusted since they are third-party builds. Most people, even Linux users, should use Google Chrome.

Any alternative browsers with the ability to block 1st and/or 3rd party javascript, css, cookies, and images on each website?

I'm just using Konqueror since I'd started using KDE.

>>57217 but it doesn't have any ad blockers

>>57038 I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to Linux, is in fact, oh who am I kidding? You glitterboys will never stop mistaking Linux as an operating system and not just a kernel.

>>57248 >muh GNNNNNNNNU/Linux autism Userland is built around the kernel not the other way around. That's why nobody cares about the distinction. Linux+gnu, Linux+musl, Linux+bionic, they all work more or less the same. Linux+gnu and Hurd+gnu are both gnu userlands but work completely differently and second one can't run most apps you are familiar with including Firefox. The important thing is always the kernel.

>>57252 Tell me when have you used the kernel directly the last time?

>>57268 why, last time I booted my computer. That is to say, many years ago.

Why not just use hardened firefox? Use ffprofilemaker or arkenfox user.js? I use mull web browser on my phone from fdroid, it's basically firefox android with user.js baked in. (With additional stuff from the tor uplift project) Better security, and no telemetry to be honest I have ungoogled chromium just in case Mozilla fuarrrks up hard

>>57278 Because Firefox is not secure and neither is Ungoogled Chromium. You should use Google Chrome and nothing else.

>>57285 This is the lowest effort bait I have ever seen lmfaoo

>>50506 >firefox does not even work anymore on non-gamer hardware I do all of my daily computing on a raspberry pi 4, and ff works just fine.

>>57307 But he's right. Chrome is the most secure and trusted browser.

>>57349 >most secure Maybe. >trusted != trustworthy

>>57357 >Google >a known multicorporation which prioritizes user security >has never had a data breach >software is recommended by countless security experts >has official binaries >Ungoogled Chromium team >completely unknown developers >may or may not be collecting and selling your data >software has poor security and most security experts recommend against using it >doesn't have official binaries Ungoogled Chromium isn't any better for privacy than SRWare Iron, Comodo Dragon, or Epic. It is a scam browser just like the rest of them. Never use forks of Chrome developed by unknown publishers. Stick with Google Chrome.

>>57360 this is the most high effort bait ive ever seen

>>57364 But it's not bait. It's the truth. Most people including lain should use Google Chrome and nothing else.

>>57424 Incorrect. Most people including lain should Avoid using Google Chrome and use something else.

>>57717 Incorrect. Most people including Jerome should Avoid using Google Chrome and use Gnome (Epiphany).

>>57718 >GNOME >uses GTK >depends on systemd >client-side decorations >online account integration >richard stallman can suck my balls >niggers are superior to wh*tes yeah no

>>57722 I was just making a silly rhyme.

Have been using ungoogled chromium, both on my arch,windows and android. I'm not a fan of the pre included adblockers like the one with vivaldi and brave. I'm also pretty tied in with the chrome extensions so this was the only privacy-conscious solution I found viable. I have an extension to add extensions directly from the web store. with that I installed bitwarden, uBlock origin and privacy badger. I also tightened down the browser in the settings.

>>57738 Do you build it yourself or do you get your binaries from someone else?

>>57738 I always found ungoogled chromium to be kind of buggy so I just moved back to firefox in the end since Icecat's too old for some things I need for day to day life.

>>57738 Ungoogled Chromium is not secure and is actually less private and secure than a tweaked Google Chrome. https://qua3k.github.io/ungoogled/ https://web.archive.org/web/20211212010200/https://qua3k.github.io/ungoogled/

Non-free proprietary spyware like Chrome is always inferior to FOSS like Chromium. >>57742 >actually less private and secure than a tweaked Google Chrome. Bullshit, unless you meant Chromium. And even then I highly doubt it since the article was mostly about Debian/Fedora packages that are provided by the upstream.

I recommend using Safari on iOS and Google Chrome on all other devices. All browsers on iOS must use WebKit and are essentially reskins of Safari, so none of them offer any privacy/security advantage over the default browser, which I believe is trustworthy since users are already trusting Apple with their operating system. I recommend Google Chrome because all other browsers including Firefox, Chromium, and Ungoogled Chromium are all lacking in security. If one requires privacy, they can disable telemetry in the settings. Users who require anonymity should use the Tor browser.

>>57790 >hurr durr better to blend in and give data

>>57793 By using a rare browser such as Brave, LibreWolf, or Ungoogled Chromium, you are standing out by having a unique fingerprint and thus worsening privacy, even if the browser doesn't contain any telemetry and has strong tracking protection. Users can download uBlock Origin from the Google Chrome store and disable telemetry in chrome://settings and chrome://flags.

Palemoon is alright. I use it on my windows 7 VM and it works fine.

>>57795 You know you can spoof that soykaf right? Especially easily for things built on Gecko and Chromium. Although I still wouldn't use Brave Browser just because of the stupid cryptobullshit.

>>57790 > If one requires privacy, they can disable telemetry in the settings. Imagine trusting proprietary software. They can easily to just either ignore your settings or simply not provide the user a settings option.

>>57798 +1, proprietary software is like kicking dead whales down the beach.

>>57795 >you are standing out by having a unique fingerprint LibreWolf has great fingerprint protection measures. It's literally its biggest strong point. Ungoogled Chromium is just regular Chromium with ties to Google removed in the code. And Brave.. Although it's a terrible browser, actually randomizes its fingerprint for every page. https://brave.com/privacy-updates/3-fingerprint-randomization/

>>57800 > Brave ... actually randomizes its fingerprint for every page Wow, didn't know that actually. Still CryptoBS though.

I was using a qutebrowser as a daily driver for a long time and firefox if I wanted to play videos. QuteBrowser is super comfy. Any browser that allows me to configure it from a dot-file is comfy. Now I work remote and I really do need Firefox's multi-account containers so I don't have to keep signing in and out of google. Also I never figured out how to do adblock in qutebrowser right. If someone can hack containers into qutebrowser or show how to track firefox configs in dotfiles I'll be grateful.

>>57802 >track firefox configs in dotfiles Isn't that what user.js is for? Never used it as a general "Firefox configuration file" though

>>57802 But Qutebrowser is not secure because it lacks many exploit mitigations, site isolation, tracking protection (no ublock origin support), and security features such as HTTPS-only mode and safebrowsing found in Google Chrome, and by using Qutebrowser, you are standing out and having a unique fingerprint, thus worsening privacy compared to simply using Chrome with no extensions. Just use Google Chrome, the open source browser from Google.

>>57878 or just use chromium instead if you're gonna use chrome

>>57882 >You’re not going to find any official Chromium build from Google as they distribute Chrome on all platforms. Any fork of Chromium you use is unofficial and depends entirely on maintainers without substantial resources. The fingerprinting concerns you have are being mitigated upstream as part of the Privacy Sandbox. The fingerprinting mitigations in ungoogled-chromium aren’t very substantial and it’s trivial to detect such a build. >Nearly every single distribution will weaken the protections offered by the browser in some way due to ideological reasons. It’s much more sane to use Chrome and disable telemetry. You have the ability to verify the traffic yourself and determine whether it sends any private data. Source: https://teddit.net/r/PrivacyGuides/comments/t45yfo/are_there_any_builds_of_chromium_that_update/hyz2wsk/?context=10

>>57798 >imagine trusting proprietary software You can use Wireshark or mitmproxy to monitor the connections Google Chrome makes and a hosts file to block any connections that cannot be disabled from within the browser. Most of Chrome's source code including the browser engine and JS engine are open source and auditable. I don't believe open source offers any privacy or security benefit as opposed to proprietary software.

>>57878 >Google Chrome >open source

>>57889 To elaborate on this lainon's post: Only the core of Google Chrome, Chromium, is open source. The rest is closed source.

>>57894 So just fuarrrking say Chromium mate

>>57798 There is no evidence that Google is ignoring user's chrome settings or spying on you (collecting keystrokes, listening to you, etc.). You are spreading misinformation. Spyware.neocities.org and digdeeper.neocities.org are not reliable sources. They spread conspiracy theories and FUD. The sane thing to do would be to use Google Chrome and listen to trusted, reputable security researchers like Madaidan and the Hexavalent team.

>>57902 The point is that it is really hard to tell if they are spying on you or not. Google is an advertising company first and foremost, chances are that they take every possible step to collect more user data. Better to use a more trusted browser and search engine. Would you trust the government to stop spying on you just because they say they won't?

>>57905 Using browsers from unknown publishers (LibreWolf, Ungoogled Chromium, etc.) does not guarantee privacy from Google. If anything, using browsers from unknown publishers is actually worse for privacy than using Chrome because there are no eyes on them. Google won't record your keystrokes or steal your passwords because they'd get in serious trouble if they did, whereas any unofficial version of Chromium could be stealing your passwords and nobody would ever know. Would you trust the Tor project not to spy on you because they say they don't?

>>57906 At leas Ungoogled Chromium warns you that their pre-built binaries are not to be trusted. https://ungoogled-software.github.io/ungoogled-chromium-binaries

>>57909 >Google Chrome is on version 99 >Windows build of Ungoogled Chromium is on version 97 >Arch Linux build of Ungoogled Chromium is on version 96 >MacOS build of Ungoogled Chromium is on version 92 >Debian/Ubuntu build of Ungoogled Chromium is on version 87 >Ungoogled Chromium warns you not to trust their binaries Which is why you should use Google Chrome :)

>>57912 >Platform Latest version >Linux AppImage 64-bit 99.0.4844.51-1.1

>>57902 >Spyware.neocities.org and digdeeper.neocities.org are not reliable sources. Yes they are, since they also tell how they are doing their tests. >>57912 Stop posting these baits and install Chromium or Firefox.

>>57915 Ungoogled Chromium's distribution mechanism is outclassed by Google Chrome's. Ungoogled Chromium distributes third-party binaries which depending on which OS you use, may or may not be up-to-date. Some binaries are on the latest version but others are months behind. Google distributes official builds of Chrome so all users have the latest version. This is one of several reasons why Chrome has a security and privacy advantage over Ungoogled Chromium.

>>57906 Chrome has the eyes of governments on it, the exact people that would happily allow for, and support, the spying on citizens and foreign nationals as long as it fulfills their own needs. There is a certain niche between unknown and ubiquitous in which you are most likely to find programs that have knowing eyes on them without having government hands in them. Non-open source means that the program is a non-starter in terms of being trustworthy. Do you trust the intel management engine?

>>48760 For me, it's Nyxt. >non firefox/chromium >emacs keybindings >displays documents >made by hackers for hackers I think it goes without saying that I mean people that like to play around with software and not an0nym00se h4x0rs >good docs >simple the only thing that I don't like is lack of ad blocking feature/extension, but guess what - you are supposed to make one. that's what pushed me to learn common lisp (although I know I won't stop there). Hello lainchan! Present Day, Present Time! AHAHAHAHAHA!

>>57944 Seconding. Nyxt is an amazing browser, but the lack of adblocking makes it barely usable for today's web

>>57951 I think of it as a feature, it encourages me to use libre front ends and discourages me from visiting soykafty websites.

>>57912 Chaotic AUR version

>>57944 Nyxt has no tracking protection, site isolation, and HTTPS only mode. Because it is a rare browser, using it will make your fingerprint unique and worsen your privacy. Use Google chrome and nothing else.

>>57944 >>57951 >lack of adblocking Isn't that what blocker-mode is? I personally don't use the browser, but it's like the first thing on the documentation page.

>OP makes thread discussing alternatives to Google Chrome <Literally half of lain: >USE JOOGLE CHROOOOME! the fuarrrk

>>57958 Well, yes and no. It kind of works for static ads, but it's not as good for the kind of ads you see for example in youtube videos. But as I said, I think it's more of a feature, because it discourages you from visiting soyweb.

>>57961 More like one or two loud Lains.

>>57944 >the only thing that I don't like is lack of ad blocking feature You always *could* use a /etc/hosts file: https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man5/hosts.5.html >>57965 this.

>>57965 This. This thread was supposed to be for discussing browsers that aren't Chrome or Firefox but literally every other post is "X insecure use Chrome instead". This is reddit tier soykaf. >How do install extensions on Ungoogled Chromium? everyone on /r/privacy: >Use Firefox Why don't they answer the fuarrrking question instead of sh*lling their rapeware.

I use Falkon and Vivaldi. Vivaldi is fine and definitely on par with Brave. Falkon is afaiu is nice. Ad block feature doesn't work on youtube though. That's a one thing but it is lightweight as hell.

>>57969 >How do install extensions on Ungoogled Chromium? RTFM: https://ungoogled-software.github.io/ungoogled-chromium-wiki/faq#can-i-install-extensions-or-themes-from-the-chrome-webstore >>57975 lynx+gopher is the cure.

Vivaldi is spyware. Stay away from them. Read: https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/vivaldi.html https://forum.vivaldi.net/topic/24029/return-of-vivaldi-spyware I'm not going to wage slave any other browser, but discussing other browsers other than *Chromium or Firefox* and talking about Vivaldi is non-sense. Vivaldi, Brave, Ungoogled Chromium, Edge, Opera, etc are just Google's Chromium reskin. The same soykaf but with some make up. Firefox derivatives are, at the end, just Firefox with another default config. It's worth it if you want private defaults (Librewolf)

>>58048 and it's proprietary garbage. Never trust non-free software. For the Chromium, I use Pale Moon.

>>58048 >>58049 Vivaldi is open source

>>49103 You trust him more than Google?

>>58049 >Chromium >Pale Moon low IQ nigger

>>58053 implying google doesn't have non-binary employees?

>>58052 Says who? Did you even search it before claiming that lmao

>>58055 Then why I don't hear anything about them?

>>58056 https://vivaldi.com/blog/vivaldi-browser-open-source/ You're the one who didn't search

What is lainon's opinion on yuzu browser?

>>58058 >Then why I don't hear anything about them? are you fuarrrking retarded I swear this thread has massive fuarrrking retard problem. >>58059 Good job lainon. You passed the googling test. Now it's time for the elementary reading test. Read that blog post.

>>58062 >Now it's time for the elementary reading test. Read that blog post. You failed the test though. Closed source is not the same as part open source. You are part of the retard problem.

>>58063 Alright lainon, have fun with you part open source web browser.

Open source does not have any privacy or security benefits compared to closed source. It is simply another release model. https://teddit.net/r/PrivacyGuides/comments/siqc69/consideration_on_removing_rule_1/hvacpwq/#c

>>58069 >Open source does not have any privacy or security benefits compared to closed source. But it does. FOSS can be audited at any time. It's much harder to hide backdoors or malicious behavior in open-source software. In fact, non-free software is often malware (https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html) Moreover, proprietary software doesn't respect your freedoms (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html & https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html) nor does it adhere to Seven Laws of Sane Personal Computing (http://www.loper-os.org/?p=284)

>>58071 People want software that is safe and secure, not software built according to an outdated and unrealistic idea of "Freedom", face it. Cloud services ARE superior to local services where you're confined to your own machine's capabilities. And a large variety of software used by tech enthusiasts is proprietary and indispensible to their workflow, consumptionflow, even coomflow.

>>58075 >People want software that is safe and secure How do you ensure that the software is safe and secure?

>>58076 The authors of the software are held legally accountable for any such security breaches. This is the same reason why all VPNs are encrypted and secure.

>>58077 >The authors of the software are held legally accountable for any such security breaches. How does that help the end users when the damage is already done because of reckless actions of the corporations? https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/21/facebook-plaintext-passwords/ It's not just about the security breaches when the company that developed the software is an advertising firm that's known to tracks users literally everywhere on the internet. Do you think Facebook is a safe software when it uses "persuasive design" to get you addicted to their products?

>>58078 Persuasive design is a legitimate marketing tactic. Why do you hate the free market, you lowlife communist? Your daddy not buy you a seventh yacht or something? Get real, grow up. This is how the real world works. In the real world people use Google Chrome because it's the best. In the real world people use microsoft products because they're the best on the market. There is no getting around this simple fact. How about you stop moping around and trying to peddle your obscure and 1337 browser to people who have to actually do REAL work and don't want to wrestle with soykafty technology. You got that through your thicko skull, fuarrrko?

>>58080 I never tried to wage slave any web browser lainon. I use Firefox because I like it and I don't care what other people use.

What's the opinion on yuzu browser?

>>58085 I have never heard of it before and it doesn't seem like it's available on fdroid. I don't use web browser much on my phone so I just have Bromite installed in case I ever needed one. Yuzu seems like a lightweight browser so I might try it.