/tech/ - Technology★

>>874908 (OP)

>Firefox

Still botnet.

Choose:

-waterfox

-midori

-qupzilla

-icecay

-brave

>>874909

Still cant be as bad as the google botnet

>>874910

<he doesnt know about "safe" browsing

>>874908 (OP)

I never ever used an internet browser developed by a marketing company. I used firefox back in the day, went through some small exploration and now I use icecat.

>another web-browsers thread

Now start using links in graphics mode.

Posted with Mozilla Firefox®

>>874912

>FSF

>Not a marketing company

http://gng.z505.com/fsf-restrict-forums.htm

http://gng.z505.com/cult.htm

Say it with me: GNU is not usable.

>>874919

GNU software is one of the best things to come out of the internet. With the Google and Microsoft botnets even starting to embrace it.

>>874909

Nice botnets

>>874919

Because the Foundation browser sends my searches to Foundation Analytics, who displays adverts on Foundationtube to sell me Foundation OS Phones.

>>874909

>brave

>>874909

>>874912

I keep telling people - IceCat is just as much of a "botnet" as Firefox. It makes the same unsolicited connections. You've been fooled.

>>874925

Which unsolicited connections?

Last time I checked it disabled a bunch of unwanted things from Firefox. That was a while ago, though. I stopped using it when I discovered how slow they are with merging upstream security patches.

>>874921

What are you talking about? M$oft will never endorse free software, but they have supported open sores -- same with jewgle.

>>874927

They're embracing the software, even if not the philosophy.

Open source software is almost exactly the same as free software. It's the philosophies that are different.

>another browser thread

I bet the LARPing OP is on Windows 10 and uses Gmail. Browser threads are cancer.

>>874934

>License Proprietary freeware

GNO.

I haven't used anything google related in a very long time, with the exception of Android.

ｄｅｌ

>>874935

I use manjaro

>>874941

https://forum.manjaro.org/t/getting-ms-office-online-to-work/32995

I will never understand why anyone switched to Chrome in the first place.

>>874944

Their favorite websites told them to and their favorite programs installed it and set it as default.

Also they want to sync it with their mobile chrome

I use Iridium

>>874925

That's because Icecat isn't fucking concerned with our privacy. Icecat is 100% purely and only concerned with legalism. It's the worst kind of FOSS masturbation possible, where instead of caring about actual problems they invent fake problems with regards to "licences" and "copyright". You know one of the big selling points for Icecat is the fact that they removed all Firefox branding? That's like a huge thing for them.

>Your actual privacy? Fuck off, goy, we don't care about that shit.

>>874948

The homepage lists multiple privacy features:

https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/

>>874951

>privacy features

>we pre-installed addons!

>>874952

>>874951

Oh and while I'm at it, let's talk about the "LibreJS" too. Let's take a look at my 100% freedom respecting LibreJS implementation.

<script>
// @license magnet:?xt=urn:btih:1f739d935676111cfff4b4693e3816e664797050&dn=gpl-3.0.txt GPL-v3-or-Later
(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){i['GoogleAnalyticsObject']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){
(i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o),
m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m)
})(window,document,'script','https://www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js','ga');

ga('create', 'UA-XXXXX-Y', 'auto');
ga('send', 'pageview');
// @license-end
</script>

>>874952

Why shouldn't they use the thing that's designed for third parties to add features to the browser with a semi-stable API?

They also change the default settings to disable a lot of privacy-infringing features. Maybe they even strip them out of the source code, I'm not sure. I don't use it any more.

>>874953

Doing that is probably illegal, and SpyBlock would block it anyway.

>>874948

>BSD corporate cuck is a /pol/roach

You are a retard. It was always the goal to create and preserve freedom for all users, not just the developers. Copyleft is a means to that end.

The Firefox name and logo are trademarked by Mozilla who do not allow redistributing them with modified software. That is why Debian had to rebrand Firefox as IceWeasel, although Mozilla recently backed down somewhat to get the brand awareness.

>>874956

"Freedom" as defined by the lawyers and framed in the legal context only. Privacy has nothing to do with communist-borne "Freedom" like these GPL jews spread. They literally do not care one little tiny bit about privacy as long as it adheres to their licencing rules.

>>874952

I use ublock and no script and https everywhere, I did and chrome and do now I have switched to firefox

>>874960

You are also simply a liar. After Free Software, privacy is literally what the FSF cares about the most, and the former is a precondition for the latter.

https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/surveillance

>>874963

Check the ghacks user.js to disable phoning home and anti features.

>>874909

>-waterfox

insecure because stuck at FF 56 which is not supported anymore

>-midori

>-qupzilla

>-icecay

>-brave

probably insecure because nobody among security researchers gives a fuck about them, you have to use one of the mainstream browsers or use it in a fucking VM which would be slow and inconvenient.

>>874957

>They literally do not care one little tiny bit about privacy as long as it adheres to their licencing rules.

if it's free but botnet, someone will fork it and remove botnet. so it's not a big deal.

>>874964

The FSF does care about freedom more than about privacy, and privacy was not the value that originally triggered the whole freedom thing.

But they do care a lot about privacy.

>>874968

That is what I meant but maybe I should have worded it better.

>>874965

I use ESR with a custom user.js, at least it delays the modern cancer.

>>874967

>someone else will do it

Utterly typical communist mindset right here.

>>874954

>Doing that is probably illegal

really?

why?

>Moved to firefox

>moved to

Goddamn newfags

>>874975

Because you're claiming Google's work is licensed under a license it doesn't actually have. It's probably copyright infringement, the same way taking a proprietary ebook owned by someone else and slapping a creative commons license on it would be.

By putting it between those tags you're applying the GPLv3 to it, which means you're granting people permission to redistribute it and modify it and all that stuff. I think you're also promising anyone who receives it to provide the unobfuscated code ("preferred form of the work for making modifications to it") on request, but you can't do that.

>>874978

>you're claiming Google's work is licensed under a license it doesn't actually have

really?

where?

the fact that LibreJS interprets it like that is their problem, not mine. :^)

>>874981

That's on the tier of "when I said 'this is a robbery' I was actually talking in a private language that I only I speak and I had no way of knowing that these English-speaking people would interpret it as an English sentence". It's just not how it works.

>>874981

You are the one breaking copyright, not LibreJS.

>I uploaded Transformers 12 to Youtube and ContentID did not detect it so I did nothing wrong :^)

>>874983

There isn't any plain english text explaining that the license is what it is.

>By putting it between those tags you're applying the GPLv3 to it,

the problem is, nope, not really.

also it obviously won't save you from exploits, etc.: they are already illegal so for those who would do it, it won't matter if they need to do one more illegal (and trivial) thing.

it's like it won't stop a gangman from robbing you on the street if they have to spit on your face for some reason before getting your stuff.

>>874988

Why does there have to be plain English text? Do you think that using a (not even secret) code magically makes things legal?

There's no reasonable way to claim you didn't intend it to be LibreJS tags or shouldn't be expected to know what attaching the LibreJS tags means.

>>874992

>There's no reasonable way to claim you didn't intend it to be LibreJS tags or shouldn't be expected to know what attaching the LibreJS tags means.

Do I have to know about all autistic browser extensions? :^)

>>874994

No, but there's no other possible way you'd make somethting that's compatible with this particular one.

>>874996

by chance

by copying from stackoverflow

by delegating the work to some clueless faggot

by accidentally reading a misleading tutorial on the web

>>874908 (OP)

You're baiting, go back to >>>/tv/ you mongrel.

Iridium

thinks moving to sorosfox is an even better option

>being this gullible

>>874999

I'm not sure if that's a valid excuse, but even if it is, it stops being valid the moment someone informs you.

so do i use sjwfox or join the chromium botnet?

>>875066

>it stops being valid the moment someone informs you

only if you actually read their information

email doesn't have guaranteed delivery, that's pretty convenient btw

>>875078

It's just chrome with a skin, almost all of these "alternative" browsers are.

>>875082

It's WebKit, try to understand what you're talking about before speaking about a subject.

>>875087

They are very similar and only split recently.

>>875095

Not him but you clearly don't know anything about it. It started as KHTML at KDE and then was forked and heavily developed by apple. Google contributed a bit to it and then forked off again and added it to chrome. So no, its not chrome with a skin, its a different project entirely.

>>875082

No, not at all. There are several degrees of chromeness.

Web and surf are not Chrome reskins at all. They use Webkit, which means their engine and Chrome's engine have a common ancestor, but nothing more.

Qupzilla and qutebrowser use QtWebEngine. That means they use Blink, Chrome's engine, but don't share any code otherwise. As far as privacy and freedom goes, that's completely fine.

Vivaldi and Opera are Chrome reskins. They don't just use Chrome's engine, they're forks or supersets of Chromium. They're not fine.

>>875101

Thank you for the differentiated explanation.

>>875101

>Qupzilla and qutebrowser use QtWebEngine. That means they use Blink, Chrome's engine, but don't share any code otherwise. As far as privacy and freedom goes, that's completely fine.

QtWebEngine uses much more of Chromium's code than just Blink (like its JavaScript engine or its network stack). It's using the Chromium content/embedder API, similar to Electron or Muon (which Brave uses).

Never even used it in the first place

>>875113

My bad, I thought Blink was the name of more than just the layout engine.

>>875108

>you missed a big botnet

oh yeah

https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/316096/how-to-screenshot-netflix

>>875121

Your own brain after memorizing all W3C standards

>>875101

I thought qute used webkit?

>>875126

It still supports it, but QtWebEngine is the goal. I think it's the default on all platforms now.

holy shit

Is Brave any good? I just use surf atm but it’s got some problems I wish they’d fix... might just fix them myself if I can find the time...

I hate tabs and history and cookies and JS and I pretty much just want a simple no-frills browser that displays html5 decently and nothing else

how do i unsubscribe?

>>874930

Theyre embracing free programmers work and free software. While charging for their own.

I never fell for it in the first place. I started on Firefox v2.0 and nothing compared to its customizability and features for a long, time, certainly not dumbed down hipster shit for simpletons like Chrome. I finally moved to Palemoon when Mozilla betrayed everything Firefox ever stood for because they wanted Chrome's market share so badly.

>>875304

Free software is about freedom, not price. You can give proprietary software away for free, or sell free software.

Richard Stallman is stubborn and bad at naming things.

>>>/4chan/

>>>/g/

>>875385

When I go down to the free market, I pick up one of everything without paying because free market means I pay no money.

Brave is the least pozzed out there. Unfortunately it isn't polished yet.

>ever using chrome in the first place

>>875143

Brave is a Chrome reskin with a built-in adblocker that doesn't block ads but replaces them with other ads.

But it fights the (((SJWs))), so it's the best browser ever

>>876446

>But it fights the (((SJWs))),

how exactly?

>>876451

it's not sorosfox :^)

>>876453

and? where is the fight?

>>876455

the guy heading the project was kicked out of jewfox because he donated to a nohomo marriage charity years earlier.

>>876464

sad story, but not a good enough reason to use a crappy browser

>>876467

better than a botnet tbh

>>876468

the statement that FF is botnet is a strong statement.

>>874908 (OP)

>using the G after 2003

i never even used chrome. firefox is basically botnet as well since around 2010 or so. now i use framebuffer Links and palememe

>>876446

>my browser fights SJWs therefore it's good

literally no technical merit. would you suck cock because it fights the SJW? wow nvm half the stormfags here would literally answer yes

>>876477

lol he's butthurt because his corportate overlords are all SJWs

>>876487

>criticizing corporations

Go back to leftypol, communist

I've gone a long way toward completely de-Googling myself.

>switched from Gmail a long time ago

>block Google and affiliate Alphabet company servers from loading their assets in my browser

>use Tor for general browsing, everything but banking and bill paying

>use other search engines

>hooktube if I want a Jewtube video

>no Facebook, they partner with Google to deliver your data

>no Chrome botnet

>no systemd

It's not really that hard.

>>876433

I've never had an issue with hardware acceleration, are you sure you didn't push the wrong button?

>>874953

>Oh and while I'm at it, let's talk about the "LibreJS" too. Let's take a look at my 100% freedom respecting LibreJS implementation.

I've just gone trough the whole source code of libre JS and the only mention of google is in the:

"privacy_threat_definition.js"

"jslibfetcher.py" "test_crypto-a.js"

"test_crypto-b.js"

"test-privacy_checker.js"

"test-request.js"

"test-url_handler.js"

"ChangeLog"

Files and there's no mention of the code that you've posted in any of them.

>>874954

>They also change the default settings to disable a lot of privacy-infringing features

That is true, but not all the possible options are done because it would break usability to a whole new level, basically I suppose only between 10~20% of websites would be able to load if all privacy/security options would be configured correctly.

> Maybe they even strip them out of the source code

Nope Icecat doesn't change a bit of source code it's compiled with some options disabled instead of removing the code.

Maintaining a browser is an enormous task nowadays (thanks to datamining mega corps and web devs faggots) and only teams/full time people working on it can do substantial work without breaking the shit out of it.

Also due to the heaviness of the tasks that is now asked aka being a browser SaaS OS it's nearly impossible to get a new shinny browser that doesn't turn into trash.

>Doing that is probably illegal

Nope it's perfectly legal, there's no license that can stop you to put anti functionalities in your code, licenses like the GPL are there just to guaranty that the nigger who added anti-functionalities in the software can not stop you from wanting to removed them if you want.

I only briefly tried out Chrome a few years ago back when I was mostly using FireFox. Then I switched to Opera and never looked back at either especially since Opera has a built-in VPN and better privacy options. Also, I use DuckDuckGo for most of my web browsing.

>>874909

>choose

>brave

It's still a botnet you fucking shill. kill yourself

>proprietary

>better privacy

lurk 2 years

>>874908 (OP)

firefox is 100% fag tier now

>>876531

Chrome's worse by 100x though. Google is SJW central.

At least with Firefox you can adjust settings and disable the spyware and crap for now. I don't even trust a "de-Googled" Chrome any further than I could throw the Google headquarters building.

>>874908 (OP)

Qupzilla + Brave.

But, stuck using Chromium for some work purposes sadly.

>leaving chrome this late

Are you a retard?

You moved to firefox just in time to move from it.

>>876678

>Brave

You're still using Chrome.

Firefox is for firefags. Write your own browser, simple HTML5 rendering without tabs or cookies or JS or history or GUI. It’s easy as fuck to do and ends up 1000000x faster than Firefag botnet. If you’re a lazy faggot just download Surf from suckless so that you can suck less cocks than firefags do

>>877272

Brave doesn't feed data to the botnet

>>877294

links -g >>>>> surf and every other browser (yes, even the one you made yourself).

>>877387

Cant disagree - use CLI unless I need to render

>>876473

probably also a true statement

certainly bloatnet anyway

>>876498

chromefag spotted

>>876502

>switched from Gmail a long time ago

>block Google and affiliate Alphabet company servers from loading their assets in my browser

>use Tor for general browsing, everything but banking and bill paying

>use other search engines

>hooktube if I want a Jewtube video

>no Facebook, they partner with Google to deliver your data

>no Chrome botnet

<no systemd

1 of these things is not like the others

>>876502

>>block Google and affiliate Alphabet company servers from loading their assets in my browser

>>hooktube if I want a Jewtube video

Choose one and only one retard. Hookednosetube sill requires you to load jewgle servers to serve you video.

>>874934

its pretty good but there are better privacy isn't their top concern

>>875004 would be a better option in that regard

>>877381

Yes it does

>>876531

firefox is cool!

>>877700

Love me some qutebrowser. The hinting system is my favorite feature.

>>877454

there's a difference in running their code with your user privileges, and running it without any privileges at all like scripts from any webpage

>>876678

>But, stuck using Chromium for some work purposes sadly.

actually ungoogled chromium makes a decent picture viewer for macOS. yes, viewing pictures in a browser… because the built in Preview.app sucks donkey balls more than you can imagine.

>>877750

SJW pls go

>>877750

>stop liking porn I dislike

Fuck off with your shitposts.

>>877748

>I block all jewgle servers/assets

>I load some jewgle servers/assets through another page

Its the same thing.

>>877750

Thanks anon, I didn't know about some of these.

>>876708

it was time to move from Firefox half a decade ago, just the web is a giant piece of shit group of APIs and protocols with no good specification that no sane person would try to implement themselves, and so 10 years later we got a bunch of shitty forks

>>877758

>Thanks anon, I didn't know about some of these.

Lol

Brave

What is the current best browser? I have been using Pale moon but it's drastically fallen behind these days. Many sites just won't work with it.

>>878625

Firefox ESR

>>876502

>worried about botnet

>uses Tor

>>878625

Firefox for features, customizability and privacy.

Brave for overall speed.

>>878625

Usinge Palememe without any problems. Only some super bloated garbage-tier aggregator sites won't work, but I could care less.

Getting tired of normies bragging about how they quit using shit that patricians like myself never used in the first place.

>>878650

> not using Tor

So, what are you using? Freenet?

I use Safari.

>>880284

I was not talking about Tor Browser

Tor != Tor Browser

The best browser is something that doesn't support JavaScript

Lynx for example

Tor is bloated as fuck

>>880332

>Australis

Absolutely disgusting. How can you deal with that shit? inb4 addons, everything worth using has been ported by now.

>>880332

>gay porn

looks like it was intentional, wasn't it?

>>879352

>furryware

>won’t let you run Jewgle-destroying Ad Nauseaum

>can’t get checksums to match if you download bugged binary vs building yourself

Never trust a furry.

>>876641

your forgetting chromium performance

fuck jewgle and all that, but there's no denying chromium is noticeably faster than any other browser. try running firefox on a toaster especially nufirefox , then try running chromium.

>>881149

>Jewgle-destroying Ad Nauseaum

Kill yourself you uneducated retard.

>>881321

Scared Google kike detected...