Zorin OS 17.3 replaced the default Browser from Firefox(Old) to Brave(New).
-
Probably someone's pet project
wrote 6 days ago last edited byOr, you know, a marketing company that develops a browser maybe bought an ad
-
Not all of us use older PC's. I really don't care what other people use but I like being on the latest version of whatever software I'm using
I stopped reading about here. I can tell its just a ramble about how the world should appeal to you and you only.
Kind regards.
wrote 6 days ago last edited byIf you actually read it you'd know that wasn't true. My point was Linux is very scalable and what works for me might not be what works for you and vice verca. Use whatever you want, I don't care. You can use fucking Windows for all I care.
-
I think we're pretty far from that being a problem
wrote 6 days ago last edited byThank you. Was out of the loop with ff for a while.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote 6 days ago last edited by
Seems like a strange choice. If anything i would've expected them to just use a firefox fork or something.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote 6 days ago last edited by
They should've picked LibreWolf which ships with uBlock Origin. Brave is a disappointing choice because it supports multi-level marketing pyramid schemes which says enough about their moral compass.
--
︎ arscyni.cc: modernity ∝ nature. -
Found Brendan Eich's sockpuppet
A conservative can't be a Christian, and vice versa. Jesus was clear: He cares as much about who you sleep with as He does about the fabric of your underwear.
Homophobia is a plenty good reason not to use a browser. Eich is an unscrupulous person at best, and his name leaves a stink on any project he is involved with. Unsurprising that Brave has decided to embrace the crypto fad and is moving towards becoming an ad platform.
wrote 6 days ago last edited byRead the Bible. Even the apostle Paul reiterates that it's sinful.
As I said before, it all comes down to the "homophobia" argument. No good reasons, just a hatred of its founder. Pretty sad, if you ask me.
-
I'm actually not familiar with this distro. But if I installed a Linux distro, and it have brave installed. I would immediately switch.
wrote 6 days ago last edited byBrave is a fairly recent outlier, and while it isn't quite proprietary, it stinks a fair bit of something capitalist/crypto.
-
Read the Bible. Even the apostle Paul reiterates that it's sinful.
As I said before, it all comes down to the "homophobia" argument. No good reasons, just a hatred of its founder. Pretty sad, if you ask me.
wrote 6 days ago last edited byTo take that passage (Romans) and to interpret it to mean that Homosexuality should be persecuted is to ignore Jesus' lessons in favor of one's own hatred. That's not Christian at all.
-
Instead of thinking up new ways for them to make money, maybe think why they've got money issues.
Maybe it's got something to do with the different CEOs doubling their multi-milion salaries every few years.
Or maybe their numerous idiotic acquisitions like the pocket.
Or maybe they're super strapped for cash because they moved their fuckhead of a CEO to AI development.
I love FF, but fuck Mozilla and everything it represents.
wrote 6 days ago last edited byYeah i mean true if its just an issue with their org then thats a different case. I do think that sort of money making model would work well though so maybe it could be used to fund a new browser.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote 6 days ago last edited by
Brave marketing has gone crazy to convince people it's less dodgy than Firefox. Come on!
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote 6 days ago last edited by
Recent firefox policy change is controversial, but how brave is better?
-
The thing I dislike about Brave is that Brave intends to be an advertising company. Brave's original idea for revenue was that the browser itself should be the ad platform. Brave doesn't block ads because it has a pro-user manifesto; it blocks ads because it dislikes competition.
That's why it makes no sense for people to abandon Firefox for Brave. I understand the backlash against Mozilla's recent ad-focused shift, but Brave invented that idea. So leaving Firefox for Brave is not an improvement.
It's the browser I've chosen to use after getting fed up w/ Gecko's terrible web compatibility these days (coming from Librewolf).
I'm curious about what those compatibility issues are. It's been years since I've noticed any problems -- and back when I was seeing problems, it was mainly because Google could afford to implement new standards faster than Mozilla could, not because Mozilla was doing anything wrong. Could it have been because of Librewolf? Librewolf has a ton of privacy-focused settings that can sometimes make pages behave in strange ways. (It doesn't use your real time zone, it ignores dark mode, it lies about which OS you're on, and it constantly clears your cookies to name a few.)
And on a meta-note: I dislike Brave, but I don't think the parent here is a comment that needs to be downvoted. We can just explain why Brave is a bad idea.
wrote 6 days ago last edited byCould it have been because of Librewolf?
Some issues definitiely were, but I also noticed issues when going back to regular Firefox and on Firefox mobile and Mull (which is sorta like Librewolf principles but for FF Mobile).
it was mainly because Google could afford to implement new standards faster than Mozilla could
I think that's exactly what happens.
It definitely wasn't Firefox's fault for the compat issues.
Websites would work for months, and then one day only work in Chromium browsers. Sometimes they'd come back. Sometimes only parts would fail. Sometimes they'd never come back. These sites were changing things and breaking Gecko compatibility, but never Blink compatibility. I'd try turning off all the privacy settings, disabling ad blockers and extensions too, but nothing could fix it except using a Blink browser.
So I don't blame Firefox/Librewolf for this, but it also means I suddenly couldn't, say, access my loan payment as an example in Firefox. That's one that broke. I need that to work. It works in Chrome, but not in FF (actually I think it came back to working in FF eventually)
I was always having to have 2 browsers installed, Firefox-based for most things and a Chromium-based backup.
One day I realize that it doesn't make sense to use a FF-based browser, since if I have to have a Chromium-based backup anyway, I might as well just use a Chromium browser. I didn't want to use a it, I'm generally against it Blink, but I feel that Gecko has already lost the war. I have no choice. FF is not long for this world
-
Ok but like, that makes a terrible default for Zorin OS users. They're gonna be confused and think it's some hot garbage
wrote 6 days ago last edited byRight. So perhaps Librewolf isn't a good choice for Zorin OS
-
Asides from the kinda-shady crypto stuff and the other things that've already been mentioned, just philosophically it should be kinda evident that over-concentration on one corporate controlled rendering engine isn't a good thing. Google wants the internet to be a walled garden with themselves as the sole decision makers.
Gecko's web compat is bad largely because of this over-concentration.
wrote 6 days ago last edited byjust philosophically it should be kinda evident that over-concentration on one corporate controlled rendering engine isn’t a good thing
Totally with you on that point.
However, I feel now that Gecko has already lost. I was a long-time FF and later Librewolf user, but Websites don't care to support FF as much, so I'd have important sites break. I'd have to have a Chromium-based backup anyway.
So I've now given up on that from. I have no real choice but to use Blink in some capacity.
-
Something ive actually wondered is if firefox is hurting for money so bad why doesnt it allow a toggle where a user can willingly just turn every purchase via the browser into a firefox affiliate link? If the user is approving it and its not a shady forced thing i see no issue with it, and it would generate plenty of revenue without needing to be beholden to ad companies or google. It'd be like allowing users to donate, without actually costing them any extra money, everytime they make an online purchase.
wrote 6 days ago last edited byWill it be legal? Recently honey extension was caught doing this, though without user consent.
Even with user consent, would businesses work with firefox affiliate if it is not actually attracting sales, but taking a portion of sales, and thus reducing profit, just because it is made through the browser?
Firefox tried "privacy friendly ad" but that has also received community backslash because it turns users into products and doing anything like that would make their profit engine go boom and exploit private data. Wouldn't the similar backslash also apply in affiliated sales? -
That's not the only point though. IIRC, they also remove telemetry, and pocket as well as some other things. I personally turn back on persistent sessions and history, but leave all the other privacy features there.
wrote 6 days ago last edited byI personally turn back on persistent sessions and history
I did as well.
My point is just that it makes sense to be the default in that browser given its inclination towards privacy.
-
Read the Bible. Even the apostle Paul reiterates that it's sinful.
As I said before, it all comes down to the "homophobia" argument. No good reasons, just a hatred of its founder. Pretty sad, if you ask me.
wrote 6 days ago last edited byGod, I hate Paul. He seems to be the source of most of the shitty things in Christianity.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote 6 days ago last edited by
talk about bad taste
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote 6 days ago last edited by
Y not gnome web
-
Will it be legal? Recently honey extension was caught doing this, though without user consent.
Even with user consent, would businesses work with firefox affiliate if it is not actually attracting sales, but taking a portion of sales, and thus reducing profit, just because it is made through the browser?
Firefox tried "privacy friendly ad" but that has also received community backslash because it turns users into products and doing anything like that would make their profit engine go boom and exploit private data. Wouldn't the similar backslash also apply in affiliated sales?wrote 6 days ago last edited byThe way i see it if its opt in theres no issue. This would be something that wouldn't happen unless you manually turned it on.