Firefox Alternatives

Thinking of changing my browser , since I am using Firefox for a long time , can you give me some recommendations? Privacy can be good addition but i don't think it is even possible in any browser(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST, You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf.)

You could try to use GNU Icecat, which basically makes no unsollicated requests. Hardening Librewolf or Pale Moon is also an option.

The Tor Browser Bundle is the only good option. >Librewolf They themselves admitted to not disabling all telemetry Botnet/10 >insert minimalistic browser e.g links netscape luakit Doesn't have proper site sandboxing Security nightmare/10 >ungoogled-chromium is ok but the good extensions are going out soon so no more adblocking/script blocking >BrAve HAs An inBuILt AdbLoCkEr DOe Can't disable telemetry off (even if you disable the whole cryptoshit you still get constant requests from rewards.brave.com api.rewards.brave.com and grant.rewards.brave.com) >Tor Browser Bundle without Tor network.proxy.socks_remote_dns to false

Continuation to >>82450 >>82449 It's severely outdated, you stand out like crazy, it has retarded freetard add-ons that you can't even disable and it redirects you to "libre redirects" a.k.a dead sites (no, you can't disable this (at least I couldn't find a way to, turning off the add-on doesn't stop it))

>>82450 Can you save bookmarks and login information on Tor? I don't think so , I use discord and have login information on other website , would I need to just keep loggin in there each time I wanna go in that?

>>82452 You can save bookmarks, obviously. Pretty sure cookies will work like on vanilla Firefox if you disable the "Always use private browsing mode" option.

Why can't there just be a not soykaf browser. Ten years ago you had your pick of the litter and now every single one has a string of compromises attached.

>>82456 Truly. Almost all browser suck

>82452 Settings > Privacy & Security > Disable "Always use private browsing mode"

>>82448 Best thing is hardened firefox atm Maybe ladybird some day

I've been bouncing between browsers for awhile now but I've finally settled with mullvad browser, the per site proxy feature was the real selling point for me. Their entire suite of software seem to be the best on the market focusing on real world application like DAITA and post quantum encryption instead of stupid gimics like protons new password and wallet manager. If I ever found out mullvad was ran by feds I'd be devastated, I'd probably never use the internet again. If DRM is a hard requirement for your workflow I'd recommend librewolf or brave. I used to recommend ungoogled chromium to brave but with manifest v3 being rolled out as we speak I don't think its a good choice any longer.

What about Vivaldi , I heard good things about it.

>>82450 > Librewolf > They themselves admitted to not disabling all telemetry Build it from source and disable it yourself, then. Or set up firewall rules to block any outgoing connections for telemetry. https://sizeof.cat/post/web-browser-telemetry/ >>82462 > If I ever found out mullvad was ran by feds I'd be devastated, I'd probably never use the internet again. Boy, do I have news for you. Joking. On a serious note, it's not too difficult to set up your own VPN on a rented VPS with unlimited bandwidth, if you ever decide to stop trusting Mullvad. You could also go through their blog, note the security measures they've taken on their servers, and attempt to replicate them yourself on your VPN, if you so choose (Quantum Secure Connections, running the system off of RAM, etc.). > Browser recommendations Librewolf and Ungoogled-Chromium for general browsing, minimal browsers such as Links2/w3 for reading blog articles in the terminal. > Privacy can be good addition but i don't think it is even possible in any browser Assuming you define privacy in the browser as "no telemetry and decent security", Librewolf and Ungoogled-Chromium both work fine. Set up a firewall to block telemetry (as noted above) and you're set.

>>82464 Thank you for recommendations , is ungoogled chromium available in Linux?

>>82464 Any chromium based browser is only good for security, the privacy aspect is absolutely soykaf and they haven't invested a single penny in it. Firefox offer tracking protection, DNS over HTTPS applies total cookie protection. Literally the only reason to use Chromium over Firefox is if you're under a pseudonym and need 100% security, that's the only viable option (as long as you don't use any other accounts, because again, their site separation is non-existent)

>82465 Nigger can't you just fuarrrking check instead of wasting the data of this website? Seriously, what kind of drooling retard do you have to be to take up precious disk space with your half-assed good-for-nothing worthless question? Lainons are actually trying to give proper advice (or at least most of them) and you go on with a stupid-ass question that you can answer in 30 seconds just by >go to their github page https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium >Ctrl + F Linux >oh look there's results! It must also be compatible with GNU/Linux! I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuarrrk out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fuarrrking words. You think you can get away with saying that soykaf to me over the Internet? Think again, fuarrrker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fuarrrking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little soykaf. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fuarrrking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will soykaf fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fuarrrking dead, kiddo.

>>82467 What the hell did he say lmao, im pretty bored rn can you track me down too I'm always up for a good spar.

>>82466 Chromium is getting security changes all the time. There is a lot of testing over it.

Midori is the browser endgame.

Am currently using Nyxt which has GNU Emacs like keybindings and is written in Common Lisp. This is quite nice and integrates well with my environment, but haven't explored the GNU Emacs style customiziation available, and it seems to some degree that it isn't exactly comperable in this respect. For example it would be nice to reduce the padding used in the menu, so far as is known to me there is only a simple way to change the color scheme. The program is also quite buggy, at least on my system. Even frequently used functions like switch-buffer and kill-buffer often simply don't work or result in for example the screen splitting in two (or more) horizontally with one glitched buffer on top and the intended buffer on the bottom. Overall am not sure would suggest it unless like me you're on a GNU Emacs users on a system without DBus, and are looking for one of the two or so browsers (the other being LuaKit) which work without this. Another alternative which interested me is WPE's minibrowser. This is a web browser intended for kiosk systems, and so likely is missing many features, but may be somewhat similar to using Surf except without the gcr and Gtk+ dependencies. Of course there would be no web-extentions available for such a platform, but there could be user patches if there were enough users. Are there any other users of these browsers here?

>>82456 from treating the browser as a javascript interpreter for web applications rather than a web browser.

I wonder why I see people awaiting Ladybird but not much attention on Servo.

>>82566 I almost like Nyxt, it's easy to customize aesthetically and the Vim on-page item selection is fantastic. Issues arise when you struggle with poor documentation on simple things like expanding the blocker-mode's hostlists (because the default doesn't block much at all) and want to keep them updated on boot, just like the browser does with the default one; buggy buffer behavior like you mentioned; less than ideal performance and insane memory consumption/leaks. It's very close to being good, but I wouldn't daily drive it unless I wanted an excuse to learn Clisp.

>>82566 I used to daily drive Luakit for a bit, but the web is actually unusable without a proper adblocker and uMatrix-like extension. I tried writing one myself, but I could only get as far as URI and pattern based blocking, so inline JS and CSS could easily slip past. I did figure out how to get access to the mimetype of responses, but I never got it from the C side back to the Lua extension. Probably still the best webkit browser I've ever used though.

>>82448 librewolf is a very good alternative to firefox. but be sure to install adblock

>>82575 Problem with uMatrix is you're creating a unique fingerprint having to figure out yourself what needs allowed for what features of a site to work. Wouldn't something like LocalCDN and have all the fonts websites used locally stored as a standard be better? The use case isnt fully the same but it's something.

>>82580 True, but there is simply no better option. It's either go full No-JS, allow JS fully or use uMatrix and get fingerprinted. LocalCDN might be able to handle some basic JS, but inline scripts and per-domain toggles are something else. And uMatrix blocks a lot more than just javascript lol; LocalCDN doesn't handle cookies or xhr (seperate from script), does it?

>>82581 For XHR I just found this https://github.com/benallfree/cordova-plugin-xhr-local-file

>>82583 Interesting, but how well does this stand up to uMatrix in terms of fingerprinting? At this point, you're just writing a clone of uMatrix, with the point of having allowed stuff locally available, no?

i recommend opera gx and google chrome

>>82593 Yes in a way the idea would be something like uMatrix but other things added to prevent it from breaking sites so everyone can use the same settings to no drawbacks. >>82594 Reddit tier answer. OperaGX would be usable if it werent proprietary,

>>82597 If it doesn't break things, it doesn't do its job properly.

>>82598 The problem with uMatrix is how much time it takes to set up on every website and since sites change you may have to start all over now and then and the unique fingerprint you create doing so because you are bound to allow more or less than some other people making you unique. In theory it could have a very detailed list to automate this but it will inevitably only cover the most known sites. It might be good if you are trying to prevent being hacked but not for anonymity or privacy. I just was throwing the idea out there.

>>82600 ofcourse, uMatrix is for security and privacy, not for anonymity. It protects you, what you do (from 3rd parties) but not who you are. and I honestly don't spend much time fixing sites. If a site doesn't work without JS I am simply not using it (unless it's required for work, school or the like). I use uMatrix in hard mode, meaning only 1str party CSS and Images are allowed. Fixing them takes 30 seconds at most, because you can use the logger to find out the actual required stuff. If you don't want to waste time fixing things, don't bother with uMatrix. Well worth my time imo

>>82600 Highly suggest ublock origin for those who don't have the time to configure every site they use. I set a blanket statement to disable 3rd party frames and scripts and if a site breaks its as simple as re-enabling them. Takes 3 seconds and with advanced settings enabled ublock has the power to do what umatrix does for the various sites you use often.

>>82448 Nowadays you have only 2 choices, namely 1) Firefox (with Arkenfox user.js) 2) Chromium You should use both with uBlock Origin and NoScript (or something similar) and DNS over HTTPS (or DoT) Of course there are some forks. But most of them are not that interesting. I think only 4 of the forks are actually worth using: A) ungoogled-chromium B) Librefox C) Brave (but not gonna lie, the crypto crap is suspicious!) D) Tor Browser - Special case/just for using Tor. >>82465 >is ungoogled chromium available in Linux? Yes but you need to build it from source.

>>82614 >with advanced settings enabled ublock has the power to do what umatrix does Wrong, uMatrix is still miles ahead of uBlock, and its interface is also still better. It also can't seem to block cookies, XHR, and probably some other things I've missed. Even the wiki states this: If you want to use uBlock Origin (uBO) in this mode, you are probably better off using uMatrix or Policeman, which will give you a higher granular control over network requests than what uBO allows you. https://github.com/gorhill/ublock/wiki/Blocking-mode:-nightmare-mode

>>82619 There is a binary its what i personally use

>>82620 >Wrong, uMatrix is still miles ahead of uBlock, and its interface is also still better. It also can't seem to block cookies, XHR, and probably some other things I've missed. Make a merge request to ublock to make it great like uMatrix? I mean the web can make you blackpilled but adipophilia and being a betamax can help imho

>>82622 Honestly? I should. But it won't matter much, uMatrix needs to be ported to browsers that don't depend on cyberhumpilla or Firefox. I attempted to write one for Luakit, but I just can't get access to critical information (mimetype, headers, etc etc) so I dropped it. The web is gone, thank Jewgle and all those other monopoly having cunts.

>>82626 What does noscript do that uMatrix doesn't besides enforce "height theory" or heightism? I mean come one just cuz I'm under 5 foot tall doesn't mean you gotta bog me and mog me with javascript.

>>82627 What the fuarrrk are you even saying? Anyways, NoScript doesn't have as much control over the domain blocking, and I find the UI of uMatrix, aka the "matrix" to be much nicer and easier to use. Also, uMatrix blocks more than just JavaScript. So NoScript is completely useless if you use uMatrix.

>>82628 >aka the "matrix" to be much nicer and easier to use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MATRIX >Also, uMatrix blocks more than just JavaScript. So NoScript is completely useless if you use uMatrix. I use pihole cuz i value my time and would like to not be fingerprinted by installing some obscure add-on just to apease lookism and statusmaxxing

>>82630 Right, and a simple DNS level adblocker will stop inline JS or CSS and allow for granular control over your browser traffic. Retard.

>>82632 ok body too short blah blah blah

>>82634 What does this gibberish have to do with uMatrix?

>>82646 he's a 4chan refugee be easy on him. Maybe his brain will un-retard itself with a lack of exposure to subliminal glownigger influence over time.

>>82619 I just used flatpak to install it

>>82627 > What does noscript do that uMatrix doesn't besides enforce "height theory" or heightism? Does uMatrix do Clickjacking protection like NoScript? I am not aware of it.

>>82656 Depends on how the clickjacking is done. If it uses iframes, uMatrix can block it

I want to replace Firefox with something more respecting user's freedom. What do you think about librewolf? Is it as good as Trisquel's Abrowser?(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST, You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf.)

>>82681 Librewolf does not block all the requests so if you're talking about freedom as in free speech then it's not the best, getting there, but not the best I recommend GNU Icecat if you want to stick with the philosophy but it's mostly out-of-date and the goal of that browser is not freedom nor privacy, it's just made to appeal to RMS's insane standards of what's considered free software If you don't care about security then browsers like Nyxt and luakit give you a lot of freedom when it comes to configurability, the downsides would be the aforementioned security issues (no site sandboxing), anonymity issues (unique fingerprint) and usability issues if you got some must-have plugins e.g ublock origin, umatrix, dark reader, etc. etc. (you could technically code it in yourself thanks to the tiny codebase but it's a hassle that not many are willing to take) The perfect in-the-middle options are ungoogled-chromium which offers fairly good anonymity, REALLY good security but at the cost of no privacy or the Tor Browser which has REALLY good anonymity, REALLY good privacy but decent at best security, Firefox is a hot mess and if you've ever checked the security updates of that browser almost every update has at least 2 vulns marked as a "High" security risk, the Tor Browser uses Firefox ESR at core which only gets updated every 6 months so in theory, people who are up-to-date with the security patches of firefox could possibly break through the Tor Browser Overall, every browser is pretty soykafty but ungoogled-chromium and the Tor Browser are the only decent choices IMHO TL;DR Librewolf is soykaf Icecat is ok Nyxt and luakit are a niche but lots of lainons might find them appealing ungoogled-chromium and TB are general purpose out-of-the-box choices Everything else is pretty soykaf

iwhat do you think about qutebrowser, lainons?

>>82686 I have beef with the developer, and it uses Blink, so 0/10 personally

>>82682 the problem with any browsers other than Firefox/Chromium based, is no uMatrix-like extension. Nyxt and QuteBrowser have a very neutered version that implements URI based filtering, but that's about it. uMatrix on FF still reigns supreme. So you trade the bloatware, for a lack of crucial extensions (uBlock, uMatrix, to name 2)

>>82650 lol that is moot and massive cope blud its to cl*pback people that get shook over words that feel like they have to unalive themself cause some z**mer vibe checked them >>82651 lol flatpak doesn't even use GPG to check signed packages its like pip on aids no cap Apt/AUR and the stans of package mans use GPG to check before unpacking but no no no flatpak garbage feels they need another way just like pip lol no wonder you need to sandbox this cyberhumped trash when you dont even know its legit not sussy baka bet

>What do you think about librewolf? trash saves browsing history The other alt I would say would be Mullvad but its big yikes now bruh they removed the security slider from the toolbar like u wut mate ?

>>82729 >Mullvad but its big yikes now Explain yourself.

>>82681 I use Brave so I will recomand it. TOR is in option, you get into it with extreme use. It is not 100% private but some basic tricks will make it 99% safe. Anyway, if you are not into terrorism, it will be enough for you.

>>82727 GPG is too overkill for simple package signing, OpenBSD does it properly; use a simple secure curve (like Curve25519) and just use that. No need for entire an web of trust, confusing tools, a fuarrrking signing daemon, symmetric encryption and everything.

>>82734 >OpenBSD does it properly; use a simple secure curve (like Curve25519) and just use that Ok thats better flakpak and pip but idk blud web of trust prevents things and shiet

>>82738 web of trusts complicates things more than it should. OpenBSD just puts their keys on everything possible, so trying to poison the key is much harder. Also, web of trust is a bit centralized, now that I think of it. People use the most popular key server, (pgp.mit.edu, keybase.io, keyserver.ubuntu.com, to name a few) which then introduces centralization, because people only use the biggest and most popular servers. Smaller servers eventually get elimited/shut down due to lack of users. OpenBSD's paper on signify: https://www.openbsd.org/papers/bsdcan-signify.html

>>82741 lol keyserver lol debian and arch both ship with pub keys to check the signatures of AUR/APT with lol I guess thats too complicated thou lol cope

>>82742 yeah, but that's not the web of trust is it? that's just putting a key there and comparing it. do some work on your reading comprehension skills brother

>>82727 Do you seriously think I care about GPG and stuff?

>>82448 there's zen browser and it's based off of firefox but the UI is weird.

>>82448 I use librewolf personally, but I assume the meta privacyschizo setup for modern web browsing is something along the lines of ungoogled chromium on a piholed network going through TOR.

>>82876 >privacyschizo Chromium is a security browser, not a privacy browser.

>>82877 I wonder if there is difference whether google profile you directly or after buying your data from a hacker

>>82879 difference is "im gonna hack yo brah" is fictional

>>82448 I would choose between Firefox, Librewolf, Chromium and ungoogled-chromium. These all are pretty good but note that I haven't used Librewolf myself. I suggest reading https://digdeeper.club/articles/browsers.xhtml Also install Noscript + Ublock Origin or UMatrix. You should use Tor browser always for browsing Tor but don't use it for anything else. I recommend using torbrowser-launcher package if you can.

>>82448 yes, u can go to chrome, or a firefox fork with 1 maintainer. i suggest switching between all 3 of them so they think their losing market share

why does tor browser still include noscript this is the most dumb fuarrrking garbage security theater crapware and privacy theater before that was a word it literally belongs in 2008, burried under a rock it massively expands your fingerprint it makes it impossible to reproduce tor browser's behavior it adds fingerprints based on which things you decide to allow and block (when it gets false positives every 3 seconds thinking some request is xss, and then the charlatan browser user thinks this is a privacy leak warning and blocks it based on if the domain name sounds scary)

>>83066 its their debuggable "default deny" feature for tracking scripts. the issues you've mentioned only exist if someone selectively enables particular scripts and can only be abused if they do so haphazardly, plus the browser itself is designed around making that non-intuitive so every tor browser instance has the same fingerprint. giving a nondescript fingerprint to tor browser isn't something the devs are doing because endpoints can be enumerated making it a pointless & expensive exercise. they provide anonymity and security and are more interested in maintaining that

Give Librewolf a try ;D https://librewolf.net/

>>83073 Librewolf is pretty much fuarrrked to be honest. It's a sinking ship after that one loony lead maintainer decided to incorporate more politics into the project. https://codeberg.org/librewolf/issues/issues/1978 https://codeberg.org/librewolf/issues/issues/1989 https://codeberg.org/librewolf/issues/issues/1977 https://codeberg.org/ohfp >absolutely not apolitical. https://librewolf.net/ >@ohfp >Project Admin >Linux Maintainer

>>83076 Didn't know about this. That's a bit irksome to see. But saying the project is doomed off those reasons alone feels a bit much. If nothing else it can be built a lot faster than Ungoogled Chromium. If it turns out that I'm wrong and the project is well and truly finished, we still have the source code. Worst case scenario it can be forked and work on the project can be continued on by others. Browser Recommendations: Graphical: - Librewolf (for general browsing) - Tor Browser (for browsing onion sites, reading blogs) - Ungoogled Chromium with uBlock Origin (for sites that are picky about using Chrome-based browsers) - Firefox with private settings and uBlock Origin (for normal people things like banking) TUI: - links2 (for reading blog articles in the terminal) - w3m (also for reading blog articles in the terminal) I haven't tried the Ladybird browser but I wish them the best of luck. Seems like they aim to release an alpha version in summer 2026: > https://ladybird.org > When is it coming? > We are targeting Summer 2026 for a first Alpha version on Linux and macOS. This will be aimed at developers and early adopters.

>>83077 I would definitely say it's doomed. None of the other developers stood up, and they all let it happen. They also removed the 4get search engine due to "hate speech"[1] and silenced the author when he tried to appeal it lol. And yeah, we have the source code, but who is gonna stand up and fork the project? Maintaining a browser is hard, especially if you have to decyberhump a large amount of the codebase every release. Librewolf already does a big chunk of this, but even then, they can also sneak in whatever they wish. Won't be long before they start virtue signaling everywhere. Like they did when they renamed the "master" branch to "main" because muhh racism. A small thing, but I don't want to stick around for the project to become a "politics first, code quality second" browser. [1] https://codeberg.org/librewolf/issues/issues/1976

I've moved off of Librewolf (I don't really care about their politics, I just think the devs are worms and don't trust them) to a self hardened version of Waterfox, and I'm honestly pretty impressed by it. In case anyone doesn't know. the Waterfox devs did a collab project with the TST extension developers, and built a version of TST into the browser natively. With one button press, you can disable horizontal tabs, flip on vertical tabs, and even have permanent image previews on the tabs themselves without having to hover on them. Its the best/most complete version of Vertical tabs on any FF based browser, and you don't even have to edit some css file to get horizontal tabs to disappear. For more serious soykaf, always use tor, or tor+vm (whonix for example). If you've got to use Chrome, Ungoogled Chromium is pretty much the only option, since brave have been caught with their hand in the metaphorical cookie jar numerous times over the years.

>>83078 > They also removed the 4get search engine due to "hate speech" and silenced the author when he tried to appeal it lol. In fairness, the dev posted a picture of a dildo in his appeal, but I agree the removal was dumb. > And yeah, we have the source code, but who is gonna stand up and fork the project? Maintaining a browser is hard, especially if you have to decyberhump a large amount of the codebase every release. I'm sure someone will grow tired of the direction the project has taken and fork it. There's already an active fork of Librewolf, Cachy Browser[1], that comes with a PKGBUILD file[2]. If n othing else, if you grow tired of the changes they have made, fork it yourself. > Librewolf already does a big chunk of this, but even then, they can also sneak in whatever they wish. Maybe in the binary releases, but the browser can be built from source. If they make a change I disagree with I can remove or modify it and rebuild. > A small thing, but I don't want to stick around for the project to become a "politics first, code quality second" browser. A small thing, yes. If it turns into something larger I'll switch browsers. Perhaps by then Ladybird will be in a more usable state. For the moment, Librewolf is a solid browser. In the future this may change, and if and when it does I will switch. [1] https://github.com/cachyos/cachyos-browser-settings [2] https://github.com/CachyOS/CachyOS-PKGBUILDS/blob/master/cachy-browser/PKGBUILD >>83079 > self hardened version of Waterfox That's interesting. What changes do you make to harden it? Did you build from source or just change some of the settings?

>>83081 I suppose so. I won't be there then though. Hopefully I have figured out a way to implement uMatrix-like functionality for a WebKitGTK based browser (luakit) by then so I can fully ditch it.

>>83081 Just a custom user.js (similar to the standard FF hardening one people use but tweaked slightly to avoid breaking some sites), compiled from source, https everywhere on, "send do not track requests" off (its actually harmful), spoofed useragent. About as private as FF can get without breaking soykaf constantly, or letterboxing the browser or something. Its my everyday browser, for anything else I just flip on tor.

>>82452 If you're concerned about the security to some extent then saving your logins isn't an acceptable option. The highest security mode of Tor blocks all of scripts, too many sometimes. The default mode plus a few tweeks is decent enough. I hope you don't mind the slow speed. >>82464 >Build it from source and disable it yourself, then. Or set up firewall rules to block any outgoing connections for telemetry. As long as you know what you should be looking for. Right I suppose you can proceed negatively by knowing what you want to allow out, so anything outside of this comfy list is suspect by default and then you trace it back.

As of this post, Mozilla has changed their ToS to remove the "we're not selling your data" clause. All this stuff started when they started receiving Goolag's funding. Pale Moon is the only truly independent browser.

>>83792 They really should have properly explained what that is referring to and what that data is. I suspect it may be related to "privacy preserving ad measurement" feature which you can opt out of because this involves an anonymous way of seeing if someone clicked on an ad and if they bought a product as result of the ad. People were mad over it because they didnt understand how it worked and didnt like it being opt out but it was meant as a move to encourage advertisers to stop collecting more personally identifiable information. I am not certain but this policy change may be referring to this.

>>83793 i couldve sworn that was something they'd done months ago by now (dont quote me on exacts, my sense of time is heavily skewed) while what >>83792 is referring to happened within the last week or so.

>>82448 Just use two laptops - one exclusively for TOR and the other one for a clearnet browser.

>>83792 They cleared this up. It was exactly as I suspected a nothing burger where nothing actually changed in what they do. https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-news/firefox-terms-of-use/ >>83794 My sense of time is messed up too. >>83795 If you can afford two laptops you likely can afford one good computer to run Qubes if you're that concerned. It requires a lot of ram. Use of two only makes sense if you travel with a laptop and need something you can allow the storage to be inspected so you dont get held hostage over nothing but respect for your own privacy.

>>83795 you could just use one laptop and boot tails from usb bc it was made for that exact use

>>83795 >Just use two laptops - one exclusively for TOR and the other one for a clearnet browser. <tor spelled as TOR <comparing the Tor protocol with a browser <"""""clearnet browser""""" <all of these mistakes in a single sentence

>>83802 > tor spelled as TOR It's an acronym regardless who cares if he wants to accentuate that. > comparing the Tor protocol with a browser he obviously meant the Tor browser > """"clearnet browser""""" He means any browser that isn't the Tor browser. > all of these mistakes in a single sentence right back at you

Very relevant to this thread and I'm surprised anon hasn't been talking about it yet. For over a month now, Cloudflare has been discriminating against alternative web browsers to the Google hegemony by refusing to "verify" them as legitimate browsers through their browser check loop. On some browsers this has been blatantly malicious by designing the loop to hang indefinitely while it rapidly consumes all of the user's memory until a program crash. This has included Palemoon, Librewolf, Waterfox, IceCat, Seamonkey, Falkon, and more. Basically it seems like anything that isn't a subservient Chrome fork or Firefox itself is being gatekept out of the web by Cloudflare. The likelihood that this is being done deliberately is high because a) they have been doing it for an entire month, b) the entire time they have refused to respond to developers reaching out asking them to fix it, and c) Cloudflare themselves have stated that their secret proprietary methods of fingerprinting "human" browsers are tailor-fit to each browser. Some links following this story: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=32045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42953508 https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=25/02/07/044225 http://techrights.org/n/2025/02/20/Instead_of_DoS_Protection_Cloudflare_is_Allegedly_Conducting_Do.shtml

i use edge its pretty nice fast and beatifull

>>83812 >It's an acronym regardless who cares if he wants to accentuate that. https://support.torproject.org/about/#about_why-is-it-called-tor >Note: even though it originally came from an acronym, Tor is not spelled "TOR". Only the first letter is capitalized. In fact, we can usually spot people who haven't read any of our website (and have instead learned everything they know about Tor from news articles) by the fact that they spell it wrong. >he obviously meant the Tor browser Should've been specified >He means any browser that isn't the Tor browser. Again, should've been specified. Brave also has an option for enabling Tor, does that mean that it's not a clearnet browseer? The Tor browser can also access clearnet sites without any additional configuration

>>83822 theyv been doin this for years but ofc autistic cumskins are too dumb to notice. mainly if u use tor/vpn without tor browser/glitterboyfox. >>83822 >all this misinfo is the only way to get users to rise up against WeValueUrSecurityGoy Corp this is why hapas are superior to whites

>>83822 This actually is possibly an issue with the settings of the site owners that they use with CloudFlare I had this happen on one site the endless loop and it eventually stopped doing the loop some months later. If it was CloudFlare I don't think it would have suddenly started working later.

>>83854 Read through some of the Palemoon forum posts. Cloudflare is most definitely responsible this time.

>>83856 What happens with user agent spoofing?

I am enjoying IceCat. They are actually trying to make a browser that actually respects the user's choices. Some of their extensions break most mainstream websites, but you can just disable or tweak them. But you cannot uninstall them for some reason. The annoying thing is that you need to compile it yourself to get the latest Firefox ESR version.

>>83864 Because IceCat runs under the Stallman cult so it's designed to be autistic nonsense. They unironically think websites providing source code makes them safe, as if they cant just run anything on the backend or as if you compile the websites from source which isnt a thing.

>>82451 Icecat is merely a collection of various script to run on Firefox. It's just the binaries that are outdated, because nobody bothers to compile it, but if you compile Icecat from source, it's up-to-date.

Why is Mullvad Browser so unpopular? It seems like the best by miles, developed together with the Tor Project. I don't understand

>>83896 I've tried to run IceCat, but it had what seemed to be a redirecting to alternative websites, e.g. I couldn't enter Youtube because it redirected me to some other video sharing website. I couldn't find how to disable this feature so I went back to Firefox with Arkenfox.

>>83897 enjoy the fruit on Eden in contented silence, you fool

>>83899 no, my fingerprint protection depends on other people using it too

>>83897 no plugins, no customization, screen is locked in a small box

>>82448 I use the Brave Browser for both PC and phone since it has the built -in features I want. Also if you want something that is not built upon Chromium, perhaps you could look into Palemoon?

>>83904 that's a feature

>>83897 You would be surprised how many people use it, mullvad browser is simply superior to all alternatives for the clearnet except tor or outright disabling javascript. Ive always thought the push to standardize browser fingerprints would be a major win for online privacy, if it takes a company like mullvad to do so then good on them. >>83904 anon you do know you can install plugins and themes right?

>>83916 >anon you do know you can install plugins and themes right? Mullvad has built in noscript and ublock which is enough to have a functional browser, if you want other extensions though you need to install them from file, I think the same way as in ungoogled chromium.

>>83917 you can install them from the mozilla store

>>83916 If privacy and security is the concern the ideal would be something like LocalCDN but standardized where sites call on standardized libraries locally instead of using a CDN. >>83917 I am not sure why they used that combo instead of uMatrix which does most of what NoScript does and both you have to do a lot of setup per site.

>>83917 >if you want other extensions though you need to install them from file no, it works just like firefox, can just use the mozilla addons site

>>83898 Yes, IceCat is very user unfriendly and breaks a lot of things by default. If you press CTRL + SHIFT + A to open the add-ons page, you can disable the "Privacy Redirect" add-on. But you probably don't want to use IceCat since by default it is also outdated and you will need to compile it yourself to get the latest security updates. Still, if you want a mix of privacy and easy of use, maybe try Mullvad.

>>83928 I tried it shortly after my post and it's great, it seems like a nice blend of all the things I wanted in a browser. Probably the best one out there along with Tor.

Mullvad Browser is utter trash and dogwater now https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/applications/mullvad-browser/-/issues/329

>>84101 >https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/applications/mullvad-browser/-/issues/329 >Remove the Security Levels icon from the toolbar you're... you're being facetious, right?

I've switched from Firefox to Floor, and so far, I haven't had any issues or complaints.

>>84103 >Floor Can't believe it took me this long to notice, but I meant *Floorp.

>Floorp is the most sophisticated, unlimitedly customizable and unsupervised web browser in the Firefox derivation. I beg you. No offense to japs but I know hype when I see it.

>>84101 >Remove the Security Levels icon from the toolbar >The icon could still be re-added by dragging it from the Customize toolbar menu.

>>82681 I would honestly recommend Basilisk https://www.basilisk-browser.org/ I find it to be a debloated version of palemoon and (as far as I can tell) none of the things mentioned on digdeeper (https://digdeeper.neocities.org/articles/browsers.xhtml#palemoon) that have made palemoon annoying. Easy to get going with and especially with Librewolf being entirely dependent on Firefox for it's existence, something to at least get familiar with should Firefox go tits up.

>>82682 To be honest, I can't take anyone seriously who recommends Icecat or Waterfox (I know you didn't here, just saying) or any of those other ancient hobby projects. They're all based on literally years old versions of Firefox and maintained by a small group. It's not realistic for anyone who wants an even remotely modern browser experience. To be honest, most if not all of the browsers mentioned in your post are Firefox "forks" anyway. But truly, they're hardly worthy of the name "fork." Librewolf is like 99% a user.js file. It's run by a tiny team who would not be able to actually fork the monolith that is Firefox. Floorp, Tor Browser, Mullvad browser, etc are all varying degrees of "just Firefox with some settings and maybe the look changed a bit." Lastly, you're completely wrong on Firefox ESR. It DOES get security updates on a regular basis (every few weeks), and many of them are the same security updates normal Firefox gets. You're also wrong on the version updating of Firefox ESR. It gets updated to a new version every year or two, I forgot which. If you care about privacy, just use your distro's Firefox and check out arkenfox. Use it to disable what you want in settings and about:config. This puts you about 90% to where Librewolf is anyway. Otherwise, install Librewolf. I don't know much about Brave other than its controversies, but it's probably more private than anything else on Chromium. Somewhat unrelated to your post: Floorp is not designed for privacy, it's basically just a Firefox skin that looks like adware. I don't understand why anyone would use or recommend it.

>>82729 why is Mullvad bad all of a sudden just because they changed something that can easily be changed back.

>>82681 To help you decide, https://sizeof.cat/post/web-browser-telemetry-2025-edition/

>>83076 >can we make this minimally invasive semantic change? >sure, I don't see why not >HOW DARE YOU BECOME PROGRESSIVE idk man, it seems like the most unhinged reaction was from the other side there.

>>85358 >he is also a GigaChad lol

>>85364 I can't take someone who actually wants the "modern browser experience" seriously.

>>85358 Unfortunately, it seems like only Mullvad/Tor Browser and Librewolf provide privacy. The other alternative browsers like Pale Moon and Basilisk produce a very uncommon fingerprint, even with JS disabled (try jak3 and http2 fingerprinting on browserleaks.com). And if I am not mistaken, they also don't have cookie isolation unlike modern Firefox. So even stock Firefox probably provides better privacy, despite the telemetry. But if you use one of these browsers for other reasons, that's fine. Just don't expect superior privacy compared to Mullvad Browser.

Just use Betterfox folk instead these Firefox reskins. You can make it more hardened however it may break some websites. https://github.com/yokoffing/BetterFox

>>85433 >despite the telemetry. i could be wrong about this but im pretty sure you can disable that, i remember debloating SOMETHING when i switched to firefox but idk if it was the telemetry

>>85433 I wonder if there are any arkenfox esq hardening configs for Basilisk/PM? I've tried looking around but can't seem to find any.

>>85364 >They're all based on literally years old versions of Firefox IceCat is based on ESR. Old doesn't mean insecure

Lately I reopened an old Firefox that had plenty of tabs open and above all a lot of extensions. v108 or 109. I was checking all the tabs and what I left in standby many many months ago (ok, more than a year ago). All was fine and suddenly all the extensions closed, because muh certificates. It's obviously not a dev version, but I really hate this. It should be up to me to decide to do this or not. Some extensions have their latest versions that suck. It's my computer, my browser, I should have full control over it without having to go for a super pro version like the dev one. An update of the browser itself might reactive the extensions but that's not even a given; some of them would have no reason to even depend on any external data but since they're more or less all leaking stuff and I am yet to filter the ports, I'm flummoxed more than anything else rn. I've been with FF for so many years but now they decided to act like dumbed down walled gardens with big nanny mentality specific to mobile phones. That would have been like WinXP not letting you launch this or that software just because it decided that some certificates were too old and potentially compromised. The appeal to security is the curtains they hide behind to just take away the last freedom we had over the software we installed. So now I don't even know if I should bother with the update at all. When did cyberhumpilla get like that exactly? >>83078 >Like they did when they renamed the "master" branch to "main" because muhh racism. You simply cannot trust people who think like that. They're mentally ill. >>83087 >altered user.js Using Arkenfox user.js? >"send do not track requests" off (its actually harmful) You got my curiosity picked. Why is that so? >>83822 Cloudflare has become so essential to most websites, they can do whatever they want, and since you'll always find people saying that it's not a monopoly but "just" a concentration of power that totally stomps the Pareto principle, there's nothing that could happen even on the legal class-action level. Culturally this is really something I hate with the American business model where large companies have taken such a vast amount of control over what private parties, people and smaller companies do that they are a defacto some silent branch of an alternative government, and despite the power they enjoy they are not considered blurring the frontier between private and public, despite being exactly what they do, so they can continue doing it by virtue of being a private company. Anti-trust laws are but a joke and seldom applied properly anyway.

>>83897 I tried it for a week. Basically, it's not daily driveable for most normal person usecases. You really have to think of it as "Tor Browser but without Tor". For example, drag and drop image uploads will turn into rainbow static (it's a feature). You start turning these antifingerprinting features off, you'll be told you're missing the entire point of the browser. It's also hard compiled with a rendering setting that causes Youtube, Google Street View and many other sites to stutter like ass. Anyway, I couldn't find a FF fork that I liked, so I just went back to plain old ESR.

>>85718 >When did cyberhumpilla get like that exactly? 2016 https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/01/22/add-on-signing-update/ Everything is now designed for stupid people.

>>85718 > I was checking all the tabs and what I left in standby many many months ago (ok, more than a year ago). All was fine and suddenly all the extensions closed, because muh certificates. Just modify the extension file to match the number of the latest version number is one possible way around this maybe? At least that is what I think I used to do years back, it might not work now. You have to have developer or enterprise version to shut off signature checks and stuff like that. They also removed access to the about:config for the standard Firefox (at least Android version) since so many people were messing with it without knowing what they were doing and then reporting issues they themselves caused, but it still can be accessed using chrome://geckoview/content/config.xhtml

>When did cyberhumpilla get like that exactly? You don't know the half of it https://digdeeper.club/articles/mozilla.xhtml Tor http://5essxguxi5enurgtuquvrjuvikss4gc5lbhmtz57cq4cedqx5tqvaxqd.onion/articles/mozilla.xhtml I2P http://dv2recs7spoc4vquwnt7gotljvot34i4am4xqsfslhfvdymgjfoa.b32.i2p/articles/mozilla.xhtml

>>85718 >>"send do not track requests" off (its actually harmful) >You got my curiosity picked. Why is that so? NTA but the "do not track" header isn't enabled by default on most browsers, which means that most users don't use it, which means that by using it, you are actually standing out from the crowd, which ironically makes you more fingerprintable. also compliance is completely optional so many websites just ignore it and track you anyway i believe mozilla actually removed it in a recent version of firefox for this reason. there's a modern replacement for it called GPC (global privacy control) but idk how many sites comply with it (likely fewer since it's newer)

>>83916 >Ive always thought the push to standardize browser fingerprints would be a major win for online privacy I've always wondered why this seems to be the preferred approach rather than constantly doing things to radically change the fingerprint between sites/sessions. I think a mix of the two is probably best, but it seems like the latter is never really brought up except in cases where there's no practical alternative (e.g. canvas fingerprinting mitigation).

>>82448 zen browser is a good choice of a browser, it's really good

>>85749 Nice, thank you anon. But you know what, I'm not even shocked since I knew that the moment they got money from Google, their soul was taken. But to what extent, that was the mystery and I always imagined that Google used them as some kind of experiment to gather some knowledge from a browser not working like Chrome. Them lying through their teeth is that typical mid-oriental impudence thrown on top of the ample amount of salt poured into the user's wound. I never used a FF account at all, wouldn't do that. I understand the kvetching but by the time you create an account on their platform, you are going to leak a soykaf ton of information even if they pretended keeping it minimal and to the point (lean). I'm merely in this to find a way to reclaim control over the extensions I used. >>85724 >Just modify the extension file to match the number of the latest version number is one possible way around this maybe? I'm not sure it would work on the basis that some users at other places say that merely updating the browser solves most issues (or may not), so the roadblock may have nothing to do with the version of a plugin and FF may just be shìtting bricks because it's too old. Which again should be none of their goddamn business. But I'm speculating wildly here. >You have to have developer or enterprise version to shut off signature checks and stuff like that. Definitely but is there a way to modify the vanilla version to upgrade it to the dev one without losing everything. I'd like to avoid going through a fresh install. >>85756 Okay, the negative space effect where you simply stick out by not conforming. Of course having the DNT feature on by default for a browser so concerned about privacy (right?) would obviously be the most logical thing to do.

Pale Moon gives a 403F if accessing the website through TorB. WT?

>>85879 moonchild (lead dev) hates tor and anything tor related.

>>85919 why? is he a glowie???

>>85921 i think a glowie has all the interest into promoting tor usage, but no, he just thinks that tor is only useful for pedos. i didn't save a source, but you can just browse the palemoon forums and look up his posts.

>>85923 Bad argument but if the argument was tor isnt suitable for daily browsing due to how it is blocked on so many sites and the slow speeds and how much basic functionality is broken it would be valid. >>85757 > I've always wondered why this seems to be the preferred approach rather than constantly doing things to radically change the fingerprint between sites/sessions. I think a mix of the two is probably best, but it seems like the latter is never really brought up except in cases where there's no practical alternative (e.g. canvas fingerprinting mitigation). If it messes up faking a fingerprint the conflicting information would make sites block you for example if your geolocation and time zone mismatches your IP. If you log in to say a bank account with a new fingerprint each time your account is going to be locked down. Ive had this happen before using rotational user agents and a canvas fingerprint blocker.

>>82452 Yes, enabling certain about:config values. You can't store logins, but cookies and bookmarks yes.

>>83079 I have also been using waterfox and am interested to know more about what you've done to harden it. I will say it's a very solid browser with a great number of unexpected extensions to it's featureset. I wish they were all listed somewhere but i haven't found such a list. I also wish the developer would find another artist to do a proper icon, the W is somewhat ugly, so i just replace it on my version. >>83822 One of the features that surprised me was breaking cloudflare was when i was blocking html5 autoplay using an extension, it was very confusing and only half the cloudflare walls would fail. I imagine they have many little nonsense fingerprints like this, that dedicated hostile actors figure out quickly but casual bot operators take some time to figure out.

ai doesnt exist, nick mcjeet. theyre still primitive algorithms that just regurgitate soykaf, and theres no proof that they have room to improve

What is your opinion on the FREE BROWSER? It is lightweight, it is fast and the logo looks absolutely horrible. But I still think it is quite decent.

>>86101 Only thing I heard about Free Bowser is it's Chrome based. I wouldn't trust it. What are you looking for?

>>85749 Interesting link. Seems like a way too long rant, could be shorter and straight to the point. Important message though. It's really nothing new. I just don't see a way to avoid it as an individual. Things will go to soykaf and you can only help yourself and those "around / with" you. Just bothers me no alternatives are presented. If I use other options that are honest, I think my fingerprint will be more obvious. I've just gotten into this stuff recently and trying to learn. -- I'm experimenting with Arkenfox. Do you guys think it's one of the better options? I'm not expecting a general consensus but reading the thread people seem to disagree more than agree, gets confusing. Also using ProtonVPN which I'm starting to learn might not be the best option.

>>85749 This digdeeper.club seems like a good source of information. They have this article that is relevant to this discussion: https://digdeeper.club/articles/browsers.xhtml The reviews are a bit old though, about 2 years old. Seems like the best options until now, in no particular order, are: >Arkenfox >Waterfox >Librewolf >Palemoon >Ungoogled-chromium >TorBrowser Will check Mullvad VPN once my Proton subscription ends.

>>82448 i use suckless surf, its actually pretty good after you set it up and mess around with C and some bash scripts.

>>86113 why do you and that site intentionally avoid mentioning the best browser - Mullvad Browser? This trend is so suspicious to me

>>86113 This is more updated source but both are good imo https://sizeof.cat/post/web-browser-telemetry-2025-edition/

>>86119 Not intentionally, I'm just now trying to research alternatives, just forgot to put it on the list. Was trying to compile what was discussed above. My main concern with getting away from main browsers / forks is that you lose the advantage of getting lost in the crowd. Nothing against Mullvad at all

>>86121 If you use arkenfox on firefox you will not blend in with other firefox users any more than using firefox forks that have their user agent identified as firefox. It all shows up the same, they change nothing in the actual rendering of pages or anything except with Palemoon.

>>86109 I just want something what is somewhat privacy respecting and not totally useless for everyday browsing. I tried Tor Browser, but it is just too slow and many sites don't work porperly. I tried DuckDuckGo Browser and Fennec, but I don't know which is better from a privacy perspective.

>>86109 F-Droid does not have any Chrome based browsers

The idea is that the less you have to modify the basic setup of your browser, the better you can blend in with others. That's why groups or companies that tell you they give you options but all the good options are opted out by default are potentially acting maliciously.

>>86184 Maliciously in what way?

>>86147 DuckDuckGo Browser previously neglected to inform users they were not blocking Microsoft trackers misleading their users. I do not trust them. They also do not provide much and they use WebView not a full browser in itself. I have been trying out Cromite and IronFox currently which both have their own repositories you can plug into Droidify which I find slightly easier to use than F Droid, or you can use Obtanium. I have also used Firefox Focus on past which is good for throwaway browser sessions but not if you want something more lasting. A few browsers are compared here but unfortunately IronFox isnt here, however IronFox is based on Mull building further into improving that which used to be listed and you still can find the old lists last with Mull was issue 92 though the devs have been improving on it so i am not sure where IronFox stands now. https://privacytests.org/android https://privacytests.org/archive/issue92/android >>86148 It is only around 5mb. FREE browser clearly uses WebView which is just Chrome basically.

>>86193 They pretend giving you a better cover but it needs to be activated manually, sometimes with a combination of options. Not all people will activate these options and even less may activate all the relevant ones. So people who activate the options and only a certain amount of them are already creating a mini-profile of themselves. This is something the companies would know. On the other hand it's not what we could say excessive too so assuming you're clever enough to act as a normal person, you could re-blend in, even if only on the fringes of the normal person world. There is just no perfect solution unless a very secure system is used in its default way by most of its users. Tor Browser kinda goes there but it is better with some typical FF extensions, which again makes you stick out.

>>86313 based brain haver. except browser plugins are complete garbage, even the built in one called noscript, which should be removed. once that happens we can go back to using about:config javascript.enabled=false. you shouldnt be toggling js on a per site basis, because then site X will profile you and share with site Y and Z. you shouldnt even use a mouse/keyboard when browsing with js enabled this isnt extreme, its just the incompetence of who made the abomination that is WWW. no protocol on earth should require live movements of a human like its quake 3 you should have alternative frontends for every site (search, image search, reddit, twitter, bluesky, linkedin, lyrics, youtube, etc) on bookmarks / searchbar / bookmark keywords (the thing where you can type "youtube serial experiments lain" and it will open https://invidious.nerdvpn.de/search?q=serial+experiments+lain) or use external tools to gen that URL into address bar dont use redirector plugin because that requires running some nosec-dweeb's code firefox (so TB) supports POST requests in bookmarks without any plugins, once you export bookmarks to json and edit them then reimport

I made a separate user for managing torrents and I figured text browers like w3m should be sufficient for browsing sites like nyaa.si. What I did not expect was it displaying images at high resolution in the native Linux terminal. It blows my mind that this is even possible. It also works in xterm (picrel). I'm now tempted to write a file browser which takes advantage of whatever feature w3m exploits.

>>86350 i think a file browser already does that using w3m. i installed w3m, installed ranger(file browser), enabled image preview in ~/.config/ranger/rc.conf bada bing bada boom im looking a cat pictures and browsing files all within xterm

>>86322 is there an alternative frontend for linkedin? i've never seen one

>>86350 >file browser you mean like ranger?

>>86350 >What I did not expect was it displaying images at high resolution in the native Linux terminal. It blows my mind that this is even possible. It's fuarrrking about the worst thing the tranny retards ever did to terminals. Holy fuarrrk how stupid you need to be to implement images in a text environment. Learn the fuarrrking tcl/tk or whatever, such an embarrassment.

>>86354 soykaf like this is how I know templeos retards are in it for the meme and nothing else. images in terminal is a cool idea and calling everything about foss you don't like ~tranny~ makes it clear you don't really know anything about it. I didn't really have opinions one way or another at first but stupid, aggressive people like you make me wish every project had the same antichud policies as whatever project you're complaining about. you should be thrown out until you become an adult mentally even if you are one physically.

>>86356 >you should be thrown out until you become an adult mentally this goes for you for being so spiteful too, you're no different...

>>86357 That Lain is right though and you know it.

What actually makes a good browser to begin with? What are all the features loved and hated by Lains here? Breaking it down might help create an image of what an ideal browser would be and maybe someone could put it together from parts of various browsers.

>>86359 no, stop trying to make me choose between two raging retards

>>86357 sorry, I'm just very tired of the creep of this kind of thoughtlessness. it's everywhere these days

>>86363 Where do you overconfident morons come from and what do you even hope to achieve? Have you even tried figuring out what a terminal is? fuarrrk off back to whatever soykafhole you came from. Besides, thinking text and GUI are opposites when they should be *complementary* is even more retarded. Some things are best handled via text while others via GUI. A graphical terminal would be a ideal hybrid and I'm glad "modern" technology is finally catching up with the past.

>>86364 Do those people have any concept of a framebuffer, or do they all still use UART teletypewriters? Either way thank you lainon for not being a braindead troglodyte

>>82448 Does anyone know how to quickly disable the nagging popping up update reminder in any Firefox browser?

>>86382 Yeah, by updating your browser

>>86382 dont know about quickly but blocking the dns for update checks would naturally block updating i had to kill updates cause they derezzed using notification api for files on your hard drive, they only allow it now if you host your file on some server. God knows what retarded monkey thought that's more secure. Probably nobody, they just say security but think we want to track your behavior so your soykaf needs to be online. btw you allegedly can disable webRTC in about:config by setting "media.peerconnection.enabled" to false to stop them from fingerprinting you with hardware, im saying allegedly cause i didnt verify if it works.

>>86398 Chances are more people have the same hardware as you than those who turn off webRTC which itself is a fingerprint alteration. It is only a concern for people using a VPN thinking it could leak real IP address but this risk isnt as high as it used to be even though still present.

>>86413 "same hardware" is impossible because its not just hardware. Information includes mac which is unique by default and additional hardware information like driver version & update date for all your hardware, you should have an intuitive understanding how unlikely it is to match updates on all your hardware parts with someone else down to the second. Also collected are installed fonts,Im using a nerdfornt for icons in my terminal and that alone filters my fingerprint to a tiny segment of the population. tldr: Once js+webRTC is enabled it's guaranteed that i can fingerprint you down to the individual.

>>86382 why would you run an insecure out of date browser?

>>86424 >why would you run an insecure out of date browser? because updates mostly break things without actually improving anything?

>>82566 For a while hardly used my Linux box, partly because of hardware failure and partly because of Nyxt. Nyxt on my system simply didn't work functionally; the glitches made it simply unusable. Never did really give LuaKit a shot, but other than running TBB in a chroot this is the only alternative presently to mind. Am an Emacs user so the vi keybindings have certainly turned me off from this. However what am using currently and seems to be working decently is Palemoon with a patched gtk+2. It's a little synchronous, but it actually works without pulling in a "modern" toolchain, and so builds on my system. That means no rust, no clang, no llvm, no dbus, etc. etc. that Firefox pulls in. And yes you need mesa-amber if you want graphics acceleration and a variety of hacks to avoid these build systems Only difficulty have run into so far is finding an LLM that would run, and DeepSeek was the answer to this. Was running the ηMatrix client but this got to be too much work for me to remember to fiddle with, so just uBlock. Overall would probably still suggest LuaKit, a browser haven't tried, over what am currently using for vi users. Palemoon is something am using out of necessity, and not because it's really the best option available.

>>86425 Use Firefox ESR then.

>>86425 installing updates makes it less likely that youll get hacked

>>86430 >updating malware makes it less likely you're infected by malware leave me the fuarrrk alone dude

>>86424 I don't consider any browser sufficiently secure as a trade off to accept having updates break ancient functions. When soykaf is soykaf and I suspect updates are used to smuggle malicious changes, fuarrrked anyways I'd rather stick with what I at least enjoy. I used to put so many protective systems twelve years ago that it could slow down the browser itself but at least gave headaches to websites. I only used vanilla ones when I needed to do some basic soykaf like administrative and fiscal work.

>>86439 Not that Lain but again just use Firefox ESR with Arkenfox user.js and you will only be getting security updates most the time. They only update anything else once a year since it is meant for enterprises to use. Otherwise use Mullvad or something. >>86443 > ancient functions Didn't all the browsers kill off custom cursors on page? Firefox got rid of the RSS feed. What else? > I suspect updates are used to smuggle malicious changes So read the code and build from it instead of downloading binaries.

>>86439 if you are an insecure browser enthusiast you could mitigate the risks and still have a good user experience by using disposable VMs in qubes

>>86485 Do you realize the absurdity though? Qubes requires a ton of memory I don't have and otherwise "compatible" hardware. Couldn't care less. Maybe one day I'll figure qemu out though, but gay wlan doesn't support bridging and I don't understand how to make an arp bridge. Maybe I'll do that using user mode networking and port forwarding. Maybe.

>>82457 Lynx gotta be the only option.

>>86495 but lynx is like kicking dead whales down the beach lots of pages don't render well doesn't play nice with js garbage etc etc edbrowse is the only option

>>86498 >>86495 i like chawan more than the alternatives

>>86490 >Do you realize the absurdity though? no. it's so easy to just install qubes instead of fuarrrking around with whatever other stuff youre talking about. manually fuarrrking with qemu and arp wlan bridging sounds like absurdity, though