/tech/ - Technology★

Maybe now developers might actually start working on a good browser instead of chasing google phantoms

>>1067235

Does that include Firefox post XUL/XPCOM since they've decided to ape Chrome's already gimped addon system?

>>1067235

Daily reminder that Microsoft Edge, Vavaldi, Brave, Iridium, and Opera are all based on Chromium or some derivative thereof.

(Brave is based on a 'security hardened' fork of electron) meaning this change is upstream from all of them.

:^)

>>1067238

only from now on

>>1067241

yea but all chromium browsers still phone home so it redundant from a privacy stand-point

>>1067243

Ungoogled-Chromium removes Google's tracking. Chromium vanilla even downloads and executes binary blobs from Google at runtime. Iridium is arguably redundant because Ungoogled-Chromium adopted the Iridium hardening patches and Ungoogled-Chromium always has newer builds.

>>1067235

>pozfox is any better

>For now, Wright thinks people should use Brave instead: “Brave is built upon Chromium so all existing Chrome plugins and even themes work on it. This is perhaps why it's seen an increase in user numbers.”

<needless shilling for brave by forbes

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kateoflahertyuk/2019/05/30/google-just-gave-2-billion-chrome-users-a-reason-to-switch-to-firefox/

this does raise the question though, is this only for chrome? or will this shit hit vanilla chromium too?

If google does this mozilla will too.

>>1067229 (OP)

I just switched to Chrome literally 2 weeks ago because Firefox has finally become an unusable piece of shit I've been using Firefox forever and swot eby it, but they just continually made it worse and and less stable. Am I going to be forced to Opera now or what?

>>1067252

It's also worth noting that modern Firefox (just like Chrome) is outright spyware.

https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/firefox.html

https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/chrome.html

Full list here:

https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/browsers.html

>>1067235

Time to make a pslemoon/waterfox esque fork of chromium I guess.

>>1067242

Do it right or don't do it at all.

>>1067252

Waterfox or palemoon.

You know shit sucks when enthusiasts has to unfuck shit by forking it.

>>1067260

>palemoon

you mean the furry browser that blacklisted an ad-blocker and intentionally mislabeled it as malware because it dared to actually click the ads while blocking them? (adnauseam)

if they did it with one add-on they are likely to do it to another. yes i know the blacklist was easily bypassed by it shows the furry faggot dev is not someone to be trusted

>>1067260

lol single threaded Palememe is so fucked up because it never got the improvements from modern firefox like Waterfox did.

Lovely that we are going down this path with Chrome now.

>>1067264

>chromium's source will contain a flag to adjust this

doubtful; the enterprise version is surely proprietary.

This is an intentional power grab by google they aren't going to leave it as a flag, and even if they did the damage would be done. 99% of users are goyim and wont' compile their browser themselves, this means the add-on developers will be forced to use the more restricted api's anyway to cater to the lemmings, which are the majority of the userbase. The damage will be done.

>using browser other than Tor Browser

seriously, I thought /tech/ are not such dumb niggers like normalfags, but I was wrong

there is not any privacy when your browser is sending your real IP address and useragent, you are tracked 24/7 by jews

the only solution is Tor Browser

https://torproject.org

Friendly reminder Google Chrome is technically licensed as Proprietary Freeware and Chromium is considered a separate project. That mean that Google can chose any time they want to just stop maintaining the Chromium source code

I'm fine with this. I'd assume that many users with adblockers didn't actually install them themselves. Boomers getting ads again would financially support sites I want to visit without having to use the brave botnet or donate. Maybe they would be less inclined to prevent adblocking if it were less common.

>>1067267

Once again Google goes Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

Time to see how hard Mozilla is gonna backpedal on their decision to be like chrome when it comes to addons.

>>1067252

>I just switched to Chrome literally 2 weeks ago because Firefox has finally become an unusable piece of shit

What the fuck are you even on about? I did exactly the opposite (switched from ungoogled Chromium to Firefox) 2 weeks ago after years using Chromium, for the same reason. Chromium is becoming slower and more bloated every new version, and it slows down to a crawl whenever its cache becomes bigger than 500 MB. I'm currently happy with Firefox, for the time being it's been much more responsive and stable. You were probably just using shit extensions.

It doesn't look like the ublock/umatrix dev has noticed this intentional breakage of ad block like functionality. I wonder if he will upgrade to palemoon at some point or just fold and delete the project. Not palemoon/the (((basilisk)))/firefox 52 ESR mind you, which is integrating the webextension features of latest mozilla but palemoon 27 which still uses xpcom and no web extensions.

>>1067238

In the mozilla source code for firefox and its derivatives XUL is not a addon system, it is a cancer filled shit excuse for a build system. XPCOM is the addon system and has its own subfolder.

XUL is compiling the entire binary as both static libraries and shared libraries and then at link time combining static and shared into a single shared library called libxul.so. XUL is literal maintenance cancer introduced by mozilla because of self sabotage of the netscape codebase around firefox 4 in order to better optimize on platforms that weren't unix, i.e windows.

The cancer runs deep into the build system, but it can be unfucked with a complete rewrite of the build system alone. Which would yield portability and performance optimization improvements in the form of purely static or shared libraries instead of both. Static libraries would execute on any system it was compiled for like a portable .exe for windows. Purely shared libraries would cut down on the static bloat that is javascript for windows. This would make maintenance much easier. Another performance/security improvment would be implementing free() calls throughout the tree and removing jemalloc from it.

Some function calls are called XUL in the source code, these are just C/C++ hooks into the javascript based XPCOM system that addons can take advantage of. Removing the cancer that is combining static and shared libs into one shared lib would not affect this I think. I have studied the mozilla build system far far too much. I think I might get braindamage from this shit.

>>1067266

>(((improvements)))

The malware you call improvements are shit. You could run palemoon 27 on less then 50MB of ram with security updates or on QT even. Sure it doesn't support always on javascript, known as css3, it doesn't support webassembly, as to infect you with malware more easily, and it doesn't support webextensions. But its performance and security is the best other then text browsers. Mind you web browser security is a joke.

>>1067265

Fork palemoon 27 then, as you would never have qt support or be able to run on less then 50MB of ram with firefox 52 ESR/palemoon 28. The moonchild dev, whoever he actually is, is completely and utterly compromised. He has access to the secret security section of mozilla's bugzilla so he is in cahoots with, or blackmailed by, (((george soros)))/mozilla.

>>1067279

>500MB

Hilarious, I can have hundreds of tabs open and barely touch 300MB. Nice bloat faggot.

>>1067273

>using the internet at all

lol what a fag

>>1067287

>It doesn't look like the ublock/umatrix dev has noticed this intentional breakage of ad block like functionality.

He has: https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#issuecomment-496009417

>>1067289

Looks like his intent is just to drop the project entirely for things removing the ability to ad block via web extensions. Right now it is confirmed for chrome and its forks. So it looks like he will drop the project entirely when mozilla copies chrome and palemoon 28/the basilisk copies mozilla. Now its just a matter of time.

>>1067273

Tor browser used to be a legitiment fork of firefox. Now its just a rebranded chrome/firefox with some hardening via different about:config settings similiar to the falsely so called ungoogled-chromium.

>>1067229 (OP)

>Press F on modern web browsers.

F

>>1067233

>what is about:firefox

>>1067287

>Hilarious, I can have hundreds of tabs open and barely touch 300MB. Nice bloat faggot.

Seems to me you're confusing browser disk cache with memory usage. I was talking about the former. In my experience Chrome starts shitting the bed when junk data in cache/local storage reaches around 500 MB, even on a SSD. Firefox has no such problems.

And anyone using any browser can have hundreds of tabs opened in stallman.org or catb.org/~esr and not even touch 300 MB of memory usage. That depends highly on what kind of websites you have opened.

>>1067292

Hundreds of image board threads opened at the same time with javascript disabled. Which means tens of thousands of image thumbnails loaded in ram at the same time. I don't have a disk cache, everything like history and cookies is stored in memory only and cleared upon closing the browser. So my memory usage should be much much higher then whatever the fuck you have open for one or two tabs.

>>1067294

Yea, I am just failing to troll you at this point. Memory usage != sqlite usage over many sessions. On that topic though, why is sqlite used in firefox instead of some more easily compressable format like plaintext? Like in a case such as yours where you needed to load 500MB of disk cache at random. Having plaintext stored in a well organized and compressed format you could read would help should you need to load most or all of it into memory say opening up all the websites using all that data at the same time like with bookmarks. Linux kernel modules use something like this where its stored in a compressed format and executed/read.

>>1067295

Mozilla decided that using a relational database in the form of SQLite was a better investment for the purposes of data configuration. There is much less effort involved in using SQLite rather than designing and implementing a custom data configuration format and a parser for that data.

>>1067265

>whaa why do I have to toggle a flag in the settings to let me install literal malware

Is this really your best argument against Palemoon? How much is Google paying you to discredit Firefox-based browsers?

>>1067241

>>1067252

>>1067255

Opera has its own built-in Adblocker.

I'm going to attempt to roll my own browser with webkit-gtk. It will have built in blocking and will be able to have individual configurations on a per-site basis. Kind of like a supercharged umatrix. Also it will be able to easily spoof all sorts of header info. Basically, anything that can be configurable on a per-site basis will be.

I'll report back if I manage to accomplish anything more than a hello world.

>>1067320

But is it prosumer centric like ublock origin and umatrix?

Because that's the benchmark on how adblockers should be.

>>1067264

Reactions like this just go to show that those browsers are Chromium skins maintained by people who can't code.

There is more than one level of ad blocking, stop panicking.

Browser based blocking being taken away by jews isn't alarming. Block in hosts file, block in router firewall, block in any other network layer.

Simple. Now the hard part is telling average people to do the same.

>>1067277

>Time to see how hard Mozilla is gonna backpedal on their decision to be like chrome when it comes to addons.

Probably not at all. They'll just pedal even harder.

>>1067325

Good luck.

Projects like qutebrowser have had this same thing on it's todo list for about 3 years now with active development that has brought zero results.

Using webkit is a lost cause. It's too closed off with the only way to add functionality that would directly effect it would to either make bullshit hackarounds or fork webkit alltogether.

If you try for the aforementioned route, expect to have to deal with the most ass backwards and bloated codebase of any browser.

Why do you think that most developers would either fork brink or gecko instead of going directly with webkit?

>>1067336

>Projects like qutebrowser have had this same thing on it's todo list for about 3 years now with active development that has brought zero results.

Except that qutebrowser does have working per-domain settings for things like headers to send?

>>1067336

If netsurf had javascript support I'd just use that instead, but it doesn't yet.

>>1067332

>stop complaining about our browser you dumb goys

You can't target JS or media files specifically, nor configure permissions per-website. It's also not even close to as convenient to use as something like uMatrix.

>>1067279

Literally only used ublock. I didn't switch to chrome by choice. I fucking hate it and have always been adamantly 100% Firefox and would never have even considered Chrome. But Firefox has become complete fucking garbage now.

>>1067332

Both should be deployed you apologist.

Belt and suspenders, after all, advert delivery system is the prime target for malware miscreants since its the shotgun approach of payload delivery along with zero day exploits.

>>1067345

Even bothered to try out the bigger forks?

Just block ads in your hosts file. While you are at it, block porn, social media and other bloated botnet sites too. Then start using lynx or w3m for your daily browsing. Then once your time on the web is free of addictive, over-stimulating bullshit, forget why you enjoyed the web in the first place and do something productive. Maybe work on that game engine you've been thinking about making since you were 12.

>>1067358

Pale Moon is the best. They're not going to go after your adblockers like Mozilla has been preparing to do.

>>1067351

That doesn't deal with shady scripts on a per-site basis nor the holes left by the adverts.

You really should do both so nothing gets through if one misses it, and so the adblocker can trim the page down by eliminating the spaces used previously by privacy haemmoraging eye cancer, and the cancer requests gets /dev/null'd.

This is a catastrophe true and thorough, and if Google gets away with it, they'll just take it one step further soon.

>>1067326

Yes. If you doubt it, install Opera and test it.

>>1067363

I really hope some Pale Moon equivalent for Chromium comes up if they really go forward with this. A Chromium engine fork browser that keeps using, improving and updating an older version of the engine before they fucked things up too much. Afaik there isn't one yet.

>>1067367

>That doesn't deal with shady scripts on a per-site basis

Yeah. One of the great things about browser adblockers is that they greatly increase security against malicious scripts since they also do generic blocking of scripts (at least the decent ones such as uBlock Origin), not only blocking by domains. In practice they also do the job of an antivirus/antimalware, not only an ad blocker. Hosts based blocking is much less efficient at that.

I believe most if not all av browser modules work in pretty much the same way as ad blockers, and I wonder how this might affect them. Most normalfags don't use ad blockers, but most of them use third party antivirus software. One way we could try selling this to normalfags is claiming these changes on Chrome will make the browser a lot less safe (which is probably true).

I use Dissenter. The faggots at Brave were kvetching about it, so I figured it was a good choice. Works with all Chrome extensions, and works better than Chome. I like it.

>>1067375

Boomer tier.

Dissenter is spyware.

https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/dissenter.html

>proposed changes

If they do those changes I just look for a fork that doesn't do them.

>>1067336

This. We need browser engines to compete with Mozilla and Google, engines that aren't funded by advertising firms.

>>1067323

Tell me your alternative, Mr. LARPer.

>>1067351

>if i use a larp browser for larping on my c64 connected via serial modem relay i can pretend i don't use chrome/firefox for grownup tasks like banking and taxes on a functional modern pc and/or phone

>>1067404

>Tell me your alternative, Mr. LARPer.

Closest is Waterfox + backups of all the good legacy addons that got shafted with the Googleing og Firefox.

Archive.org can help somewhat with the addons , but Mozilla seems to intentionally have made it a PITA to find and download them

>>1067233

no one will care. most people dont even use ad blockers.

>>1067265

its quite malware like tho. causes very high cpu usage. so high that it may make the whole computer unusable. also when i tried it it caused that cpu load and also didnt block the ads

>>1067404

>if i use a larp browser for larping on my c64 connected via serial modem relay i can pretend i don't use chrome/firefox for grownup tasks like banking and taxes on a functional modern pc and/or phone

Wow, you missed out completely what he said, it's as if you're a tech newbie who doesn't know anything due to have spent your time using the worst OS ever conceived.

>>1067407

I'm on Palememe, and use this:

https://github.com/JustOff/ca-archive/

Perhaps there's something similar for you webextensioncucks.

>>1067410

What he said was that if he buries his head in the sand, the bad men doing mean things to him will go away before he autistically starves to death

>>1067412

>I'm on Palememe, and use this:

>https://github.com/JustOff/ca-archive/

>Perhaps there's something similar for you webextensioncucks.

>"Catalog of classic Firefox add-ons created before WebExtensions apocalypse"

Neat, bookmarked and mirrored.

>>1067229 (OP)

I will go anywhere gorhill goes. That guy has my sword, my axe and my whole arsenal of medieval weaponry.

If Chrome starts blocking adblockers than I will stop using their platform. I do not want internet AIDS on my computer.

>>1067381

If you care about being spied on, quit using the fucking public Internet.

>>1067430

You know that gap between your router and leaving your ISP's network? Yea Your ISP is totally capturing all of your traffic and spying on you.

I just use eMatrix with pale moon, block everything from any 3rd party sites and block scripts and XHR from 1st party sites. I do unblocks then on a case by case basis to make the sites I frequent work again. (either temporarily or permanently if I visit them regularily) That way, there's usually no need for adblock lists with millions of entries and you don't have to rely on these lists to know about every new thing. Makes the browser noticeably snappier too.

The normie internet will become unusuable at some point if you care about privacy. The writing is on the wall and repeating incidents of people expressing their opinions too freely (and disturbing the plans of the powerful) means we'll simply lose that freedom. The powers that be are sick of us having that freedom. Just be prepared for it.

this was on purpose of course, they already banned ad nauseam years ago, now they're just getting bolder

>>1067451

yeah should move to freenet while we have the chance

>>1067432

Then DDOS your ISP you faggot. Let me explain first. If your ISP is always capturing your traffic then always use the maximum amount of traffic you can at all times 24/7/365. Even if that "traffic" is just constantly downloading 100MB of google.com and sending it to the trash over and over again. This makes it difficult for your ISP or any passive observer to find the real traffic from the fake. Bonus points if you make all your traffic look the same like downloading google.com but yet you do your normal web browsing like to duckduckgo or something faggy like that.

If everyone used 100% of their bandwidth all the time it would become very difficult to save it all, let alone sort through it all if it all looked like downloading google.com.

>>1067459

You do understand these guys have managed switches that can record traffic easily at 25Gbps or more on a single port right? There is a huge market for this stuff and the ISPs are all over it. They are investing tens of millions of dollars a year to do this kind of network monitoring.

BEST AND SIMPLEST ADBLOCKER

DISABLE JAVASCRIPT

or better:

1 Install Tor Browser from https://torproject.org

2 Open it

3 Set security level to Highest (disables javascript)

disables 95% of ads without stupid extensions and filters

>>1067462

NSA honeypot l0l

>>1067461

>25gpbs

Then it only takes X amount of people to fullfill the bandwidth varying based on how many physical ports the switch has. The arguement is still valid. Even if all 25gbps of traffic was captured every second of every day all year on port 443 that's a ton of data to sort through to find what you are looking for. Especially if its encrypted and looks all exactly the same like a https request to google.com. Its just no one has a program that does that and stops doing that enough to let your traffic through. Shell scripts only go so far. Tor will encrypt your data and make it look like google.com but it won't spam your provider with your full bandwidth 24/7. You know an alternative?

I don't think you understand. All traffic is being monitored and only traffic that is determined as being irregular is captured. This is usually traffic that is sent to "known" endpoints, like TOR nodes or VPN providers. Also rules may be generated to record traffic from known irregular IPs.

What's the point of complaining about free software? At what point do you pull your thumb out of your ass and start contributing to one of the many forks?

>>1067469

How would you determine what irregular traffic is if 100% of the bandwidth is going to a single ip 100% of the time without wavering? Let's make it even easier, how would you determine the content of spied upon traffic if 100% of it looked like a https request to google.com being sent 24/7 at max bandwidth from a single user? What if they randomly at a random time sent a request to duckduckgo.com? How would you even begin to sort through all the spam to find the needle in the haystack request to duckduckgo.com? And then you have to decrypt that one request still even when the SNI and https traffic all look like google?

Why has tor not integrated something like this? It would help with dissidents in china avoid being tracked.

>>1067459

>If everyone used 100% of their bandwidth all the time

Then the entire network would slow down to a fraction of its nameplate speed per your ISP's "oversubscription ratio", which varies up to 10:1 for business, and over 100:1 for residential broadband:

http://www.ctcnet.us/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/CTC-ConnectivityPerformanceFactorsBrief0213141.pdf

>>1067287

holy shit are you an actual mozilla employee?

>>1067475

Even if every ISP throttled every connection to 56KB that's still 4.6GB a day passing through, now multiply that to every internet connection like phones or a cable modem. Now consider that you still have to deal with the anger of the people who can't use a 56k connection. Now consider that you still would have to sift through all that data to find what you are looking for, can you decrypt aes256 at 56kb a second? Can the NSA? What about other ciphers? You see this is a great boon to privacy implementing something like this even if its at minscule speeds.

>>1067407

>Archive.org can help somewhat with the addons , but Mozilla seems to intentionally have made it a PITA to find and download them

http://legacycollector.org/firefox-addons/index.html

>>1067478

>Now consider that you still have to deal with the anger of the people who can't use a 56k connection.

Yes, so rather than giving the ISP free money for a connection 100x slower than they paid for, they will collectively request that all of the "muh buttnet" faggots like you too seropositive to understand what a VPN is be banned and fined, assuming the ISP doesn't already have a rarely enforced (>1TB/month) cap.

>>1067229 (OP)

>Chrome is breaking ublock origin, and umatrix

Top funny

>Google employees in the thread are ignoring performance benchmarks deconstructing their stated reasoning and are instead just forcing the change through.

I'm also gonna love people getting their browser infected due to less security/anti-malware options.

>>1067408

>most people dont even use ad blockers.

I've seen plenty of people use Adblock Plus. I'd estimate at least around 30% of desktop users use some form of ad blocker.

>>1067492

My mother uses adblock. I was so doubtful of this that I had to make sure it wasn't malware masquerading as adblock. I don't think your 30% figure is anywhere close to accurate though.

>>1067490

4.6GB x 30 is about 130GB a month, no where near 1TB for using a constant trickle of 56KB. What shit provider has a 130GB cap or less besides phone and sattilite providers? Actually a surmising; if a provider has a cap of less then 130GB that means the bandwidth you are actually paying for is worse then a dial up telephone connection with no cap.

So if there's a single provider besides phone providers that do such things you are better off paying for dialup, or using a mobile phone's serial modem as dial up if it has unlimited minutes for calls since you would just use dial up via the phone modem at a faster speed then a cap of less then 130GB a month.

<they will collectively request that all of the "muh buttnet" faggots like you too seropositive to understand what a VPN is be banned and fined

So americans get doxxed by their ISP to their fellow humans just because the ISP is buthurt and can't steal whatever information is traveling? What message does that send to the others using the ISP? That they can be stolen from at will and doxxed at any time for any reason for any lie the ISP is willing to make.

You can't ban such a thing short of banning mobile phones and landline phones. Now go back and tell them to stop the muh botnet person they all have to stop using their phones and shut off the cell towers. Or a dial up connection can always be made if a sim registers with the tower because of the 911 backdoors also acting as a twoway data transfer. Resulting in epic failure of intent.

<but then we will ban 911 services backdoors

lulz, do it faggot.

It's too bad there's no software that imitates a obfs4 bridge but occupies the bandwidth to a set degree at all times to fool theives such as you the cianigger A.I, the kikes, the GCHQ, and huawei.

>>1067493

Yeah, I've had those kinds of surprises. Did you mean my figure is too high or too low?

>>1067492

>I'd estimate at least around 30% of desktop users use some form of ad blocker

Pretty much. Currently at the global average over 26% for burgerlards:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/804008/ad-blocking-reach-usage-us/

Varies worldwide from 13% for Worst Koreans, to 40% for Greeks:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/351862/adblocking-usage/

>>1067495

>abloo abloo muh 56k cap

Reminder that's not what you said:

>If everyone used 100% of their bandwidth all the time

Anyway

>obfs4 bridge

Yeah, you can already do that.

>So americans get doxxed by their ISP

<Yo, WTF muh net slow

<Some fags are being super gay today

<Do something!

<BANNED

>fellow humans

HELLO FELLOW HOOMAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ENGAGE IN NORMAL NON-AUTISTIC HOOMAN ACTIVITIES, SUCH AS NOT BEING ANALLY PROBED?

>>1067358

>https://www.privoxy.org/

Can you make any modern browser use a proxy for HTTPS sites over GET/... requests, instead of CONNECT requests?

Use Firefox + Ublock Origin (+ advanced mode if want noscript like functions)

Moved over to Solus and Firefox once I heard the news about Google fucking off and becoming a Stalinist state. Firefox isn't too much better but I'm not into hipster (and most likely chink invested) browers like Brave and Vivaldi.

Hopefully Firefox doesn't poz me with their SJW shit.

>>1067229 (OP)

An anon mentioned K-meleon a while ago, is it any good?

>>1070151

Use youtube-dl. It supports tons of porn sites.

>>1067252

You have to be retarded to think that Chrome is better than Firefox. Sure, the later is ass but worse?

>>1070202

considering they're google's bitch they'll follow suit and everything will be the same.

>>1070219

According to brave developer "all of the c++" is still in the source tree, just disabled from the standard non-enterprise chrome build. So Mozilla can just enable the API, same as Brave and everyone else downstream from chromium.

>>1067229 (OP)

chrome fucking killed my ssd a few days ago.

>>1070265

cool story bro

>>1067287

>palemoon 28

At which update did palemoon 27 go to shit then?

>>1067287

>Not palemoon/the (((basilisk)))/firefox 52 ESR mind you, which is integrating the webextension features

Proofs?

I know that palemoon 28 is running a later codebase but from what i remember it still using XUL and not webextensions.

>>1067243

not true, UG chromium and Iridium have the goolag stuff removed. the others I wouldn't trust though

>using (((chrome))) in the first place

>>1070473

Still gulagged

>>1067235

Safari master race, I agree.

>>1067499

> hooman

> point by point arguing

reddit-tier autism

>>1067465

shadowsocks + GoQuiet