Firefox Spyware?

How much does firefox spy on you on gnu/linux, do you use it?

>>52962 >How much does firefox spy on you I have some bad news for you... >https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/firefox.html >https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/mozilla.html >https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/browsers.html If you still don't want to use ungoogled chromium, read https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js and https://github.com/pyllyukko/user.js and apply the settings via about:config

Firefox is still better than Librewolf and Ungoogled Chromium since it has automatic updates and gets security fixes quicker than browser forks since Librewolf can only update after Firefox does. In addition, Librewolf and Ungoogled Chromium are maintained by small teams, and since the web is an unmaintainable nightmare, it is impossible to keep up with existing web standards and maintain a browser. Therefore, I recommend a hardened Firefox and nothing else.

>>52969 You're being a bit intellectually dishonest anon. The patchset that projects like Librewolf and Ungoogled Chromium maintain, is a small thing on top of upstream and not at all comparable to maintaining an actual browser upstream. Automatic updates are not relevant to the browser either, that is something whoever packages the browser for your distro does for you.

>>53056 Except most people don't use linux. They use windows, which does not have an automatic updating mechanism, so users have to be aware that a new version is out and reinstall the browser. All downstreams of a browser are not secure because they have to wait until the upstream is updated before they can apply security fixes. This means users could have to wait a few days before serious vulnerabilities are fixed. For this reason, it's probably not a good idea for most people to use Linux since they are trusting the distro maintainers to keep software up-to-date, but they can't update the software until both a new version comes out and the distro maintainers add that version to the repositories. If you're using Debian, you could have to wait two years before you can update to a new version, which by then, the new versions would be outdated by at least a year.

>>53061 >Except most people don't use linux. Stop being a clown and look at the OP again >How much does firefox spy on you on gnu/linux, do you use it?

>>53061 >All downstreams of a browser are not secure because they have to wait until the upstream is updated before they can apply security fixes. This means users could have to wait a few days before serious vulnerabilities are fixed. No, it doesn't work that way, it'd be ridiculous. Developers of downstream browsers regularly monitor the WIP branches of the upstream repositories, as well as bug trackers and regression trackers. To put it simple, they have insight into what's going to be shipped way before upstream prepares an another release.

>>53061 >If you're using Debian, you could have to wait two years before you can update to a new version, which by then, the new versions would be outdated by at least a year. That's disingenuous. Security updates are backported fairly quickly. Feature updates aren't.

>>53061 >For this reason, it's probably not a good idea for most people to use Linux since they are trusting the distro maintainers to keep software up-to-date, Stop spreading FUD.

>>53083 No, you stop spreading FUD.

>>52964 >NOOOU FIREFOX IS RAPING ME! shut up, rmstard.

>>53124 Low IQ post. Read the articles before posting. Telemetry and phoning home is not cool

>>52962 Define "spy'' please. >>52964 One man's ramblings should not be considered to be empirical truths even at half it would still be considered misleading. Thread derails into mud flinging *Sigh* unzips...

Browsing the world wide web considered harmful. IMO there's no perfect browser anymore because Google's been dragging the entire industry around on a leash -- here's hoping the AMP fiasco gets their ability to do so fuarrrked. >>53124 Dig Deeper's stuff is good though, doesn't have as many freedum brainworms as most guides.

>Mozilla Furrycocks >Rapeware Level: High yeah no.