Web Browsers

What web browser(s) do you guys use? I'm currently part of pic related's botnet, and wanting to switch to something else.

Otter-browser It is open source, full featured, tries to have maximum customisation, based on QT and is trying to reimplement the features of old Opera. Give it a shot: http://otter-browser.org/

>>13235 If it does have an issue is that it uses an ancient version of webkit. However when they migrate to a newer QT they will also implement Blink. You will however be able to chose which engine to use, but webkit will stay the default for quite a while.

Safari. It's probably the only half-decent browser. One of the main reasons I use this OS.

surf+tabbed is the most jewnix-like approach to web browsing even if it uses webkit and gtk

old Firefox because of the addons. I feel like im gonna be in hell when I finally have to upgrade or move over to icecat / weasel

Firefox, because it doesn't need Flash to handle H264/AAC MP4 files. Chrome is too botnetty and phonehomey for my tastes, Safari's extension ecosystem is pretty miserable (I cannot live without Noscript or a fully-functional equivalent), and none of the non-Chrome Chromium forks I've tried handle H264/AAC without installing Flash. My hatred of Flash outweighs my hatred of what the Mozilla foundation is doing to Firefox. (For the moment.) On mobile, I'm using Fennec from the F-Droid repository, and AFWall'ing the hell out of everything. Wireshark has confirmed that nothing from Google is phoning home. AFWall+ seems to be doing it's job.

I'm on OS X so I use Safari. It has uBlock and Tampermonkey, so it does all I need.

Palemoon with some tweaks and addons.

Qupzilla, it's nice and has no boat. >>13242 That's not secure.

chrome.. every time I try something else I just end up going back

Chromium

>>13268 This. Qupzilla is the lightest and most functional full featured browser i've encountered so far

If you're using anything not based on firefox, you have poor understanding of internet privacy. Nothing else has good enough add-ons and ability to deal with fingerprinting.

>>13248 Adobe is more evil than MS IMHO.

>>13235 I am also using Otter Browser. Besides the occassional crash, I do have to refresh sometimes but I actually like it better than Firefox. May I suggest to you QtWeb as a portable, light browser?

>>13322 I tried QT web and it is too barebones.

>>13234 Chromium. It just works well and I've never found any reason to switch.

>>13234 >and wanting to switch to something else. Is there anything stopping you from making a whole fuarrrking thread about it and just installing SeaMonkey/Palemoon/Whateverthefuckfox?

Today Firefox was updated. Apparently they have added a tracker blocker that kicks in when you're private browsing. Is it any good? I suppose not, but I must ask.

>>13533 Probably comes from a premade list of derezzed domains, so it's probably as effective as the others. I used it on my other computer for a small while after deactivating privacybadger and I didn't notice much difference.

Vivaldi

Palemoon <3

GNU IceCat

I use Dolphin on mobile, and Firefox on laptops/desktops. >>13248 This might sound stupid, but if for whatever reason a phone cannot be rooted, would using a firewall help with the battery life? Also, what is the IPs I should block?

>>13724 Nightly here. Btw is there an alternative to that start.me stuff that doesn't require me to login & use a website like that?

>>13268 >webkit >not boated

>>13234 I am using chrome for my android. Can anyone recommend a good alternative browser for a tech illiterate like me?

uzbl-tabbed

>>13727 You can make a start.me page public so that anyone who has the url can access it. So you could just make an account and set it up and then never have to log in again or if you never want to make an account then just tell me what you want on your page and what you want your background to be and I can make you one and give you the url.

>>13727 Unfortunately there is no way to edit a page while not logged in. I don't know of any accountless alternatives which would allow you to edit stuff without logging into anything.

Another question: Does someone know a boatfree way to change the firefox hotkeys? I've looked around a bit but it doesn't seem possible with the userchrome.css I know there are plenty of plugins to do this but it's only for the tabgroup hotkeys which aren't usable on azerty keyboards for some reason & I generally just like to do these things myself if possible. >>13738 Nah I'd generally prefer something I can edit myself & is saved on my pc. I can do the regular things & make a similar html/css with often used stuff neatly categorized but it was mainly the little window to lainchan that triggered my interest. If someone knows how to do something like that it would be fine too.

>>13743 I use a plugin called Firemacs which basically adds Emacs bindings for navigation and text entry. It lets you completely rebind everything in the options, I believe. I know you said you'd rather not use plugins, but it might work out for you.

opinions to the vivaldi browser?

>>13801 it runs alright on my machine, a little buggy sometimes with extensions. I'd prefer it a lot more if it were open source and if i could rearrange the extension icons

>>13746 I haven't tried firemacs, but I use keysnail. Do you know what's different from keysnail in firemacs?

God fuarrrking damnit. Today I got the message on nightly that they'll discontinue tab groups. Why remove that feature? Other than much more customizability(which is pretty big for me tbh) and being open source that was the only actual unique feature that it had over chrome soykaf . Is there an addon that could replace it? (not a fan of treestyle tabs or anything like that)

Safari mostly. Firefox when I'm on Linux. IMO Chrome is a pretty cool guy technologically, and all minimalist/alt browsers are soykaf (except lynx). What does /tech/ think of https://github.com/pyllyukko/user.js/ ?

>>13865 I stuck with Opera a lot longer than I should have because of tab stacks.

>>13234 I am on jumanji (pwmt.org). It occasionally crashes, but generally all is good. It has most all the stuff I need and is easy to navigate with the keyboard.

>>13866 I've been using this (the user.js file) for a little while. It doesn't break many sites (not that I go on a lot) and beats rifling through the about:config everytime FF updates.

on my desktop chrome, using windows i dont give a soykaf . its 4 years old and it was already part of the botnet before i knew the botnet was a thing, useless to try and save this thing. on my laptop konqueror. wish it got more use but i always end up on my dekstop cause its whats got all my games and garbage.

What would you consider as a good compromise between NoScript and no security at all? I'm sick of whitelisting every domains for websites I visit to make them working.

>>13906 >I'm sick of whitelisting every domains for websites I visit to make them working. That's sorta how noscript works. The idea is that instead of having a blacklist which will constantly be obsolete because exploits keep being created, you whitelist sites you use and keep the rest out. Just figure out what sites you use, toy with temporary permission until it works how you expect, then make the permissions permanent. Although it may seem like a nuisance for every new site, you'll find that many sites do not need JS to be useful. More importantly, you won't just be running every script thrown at you, which makes web browsing very safe. This sounds like it's in the opposite direction of what you want, but if you're interested in a website's security you can shift-left click any of the menu items (e.g. "Allow lainchan.org", "Temporarily allow lainchan.org") to get a list of security profiles made by trusted sites. tl;dr you're supposed to whitelist, whitelisting kinda is like kicking dead whales down the beach at first but after you spend some time whitelisting sites you use you almost forget you have it on (YMMV depending on how many new websites you view I guess).

>>13906 uBlock Origin in medium mode or hard mode. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode

>>13866 >pyllyukko Literally ass guy Sage for ot, wouldn't want to waste bumps

>>13801 Would be an interesting contender, were it not proprietary...

How come nobody has made a program that reports a fake profile to websites that gets passed to whatever you want? If site functionality is dependent on machine specifics then it can be slightly tweaked to just a common generalized profile.

What are your opinions on the Servo engine? If it ever makes it into live will FF leave Chrome biting the dust or will it give a worthless performance increase? Supposedly it's very modular. Could this mean good things for addons? >>13906 Please tell me whoever made that abomination received a stoning with molten rocks...

>>13732 Opera Mobile. UC Browser. Dolphin Browser. Firefox if you care about privacy.

>>13275 Does Qupzilla have a JavaScript whitelist and vertical tabs? Those are the main things stopping me from leaving Pale Moon. Qutebrowser would be the perfect browser for me if it only had a JS whitelist feature.

>>13953 random agent spoofer - firefox Job done!

>>13953 there are a few - one I'm particularly fond of is "TrackMeNot" - it picks random search terms from popular news sites and shoots them over various search engines

>>13324 >I've never found any reason to switch. I'll give you one: it's a botnet

>>13801 >proprietary browser >ever

What do lainons think of Luakit? I've switched to it and so far I'm really enjoying the minimalism. Almost every other browser is so ugly and boated and has so much fuarrrking bull soykaf I don't need or care about.

>>14327 Holy soykaf I stand corrected. Luakit with adblock is absolutely fuarrrking intolerably slow compared to how it normally runs. I don't suppose there's any way to make it run decently with adblock either based on how it's designed. And the development seems to be slow if not nonexistent. Fuck ;_;

I use Chromium and Firefox (Nightly) interchangeably. Chromium is still kind of botnet, but has the speed of webkit and various features I like. Mainly use nightly for things that require flash, and just to watch its development. Considering I haven't spent the days if not weeks required to audit the source of either, I couldn't really say I'm safe either way. Same with Tor. Takin' the path of greatest utility, least perceived risk, and least resistance seems like the ideal. Roughly what I do.

>>13234

>>13865 for real? is there a technical reason for this? I'm nonplussed at the idea of going back to multiple windows instead of tab groups

Anyone heard about cyberfox? I just found about it and I'm going to give it a go later on

>>14557 I have tried it. Waterfox is better on windows, and ff is fine for gnu linux.

Gnu Icecat is wonderful. Midori is small and quick, not quite stable yet but I like it.

>>14493 There's a plugin that pretty much restores the tabgroup function and may expand on it.(Simply called Tab Groups) I'm not a fan of boating my browser but it didn't seem to have a big impact and seems like a carbon copy of the old tg