Opera was purchased by a Chinese consortium, I'm not a fan of Brave's hijacking of ad spaces so my preference is currently vivaldi - which was founded by co-founder and former CEO of Opera and has been adding new innovative features at a good pace.
Edit: been having fun trying out the latest vivaldi, loving a lot of their features like you can add website filters like greyscale, invert colors and sepia, monospace font + disable loading images or only load from cache, etc.
Feels like they're focused on adding cool features users want, instead of Chrome's catering to mainstream-only users and features that benefit Google.
You can hold shift to select multiple tabs and then do all these operations, like mute them all, group them, display them tiled... and I feel like I'm just scratching the surface.
It feels like the last time there was a big feature competition between all the browsers.
I think you can do tab grouping through a flag, but I haven't really pushed it.
Opera has gestures, but the system in Vivaldi seems more robust.
PS: I just fetched a project I'm actively working on. Last fetch was Friday afternoon or Saturday morning. >50 new commits fetched today. Until I'm finished reading and understanding all of them, there will be >500 more I suppose.
It's very important to me that emacs is open source not because I review every single commit (I don't) but because it means that I can commit a lot of time tweaking and learning the ins and outs of the editor without worrying about having to switch to a different one a few years from now when the original devs get acqui-hired by Facebook and they stop working on their project.
No-one dares to commit spyware to GitHub.
I see where you are coming from, but this is simply not true. You can argue nobody concerned with his own reputation commits spyware to a public repo, but malicious actors are usually not concerned with that or try to stay anonymous in the first place.
Here is a recent example of malicious commits to a github repo: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17458329
It's not so black-and-white though, hence "keeps the honest guys honest". Are Microsoft and Google 'malicious actors'? They're hungry for our data, but they often only do it when they don't think we'll be able to find out what they're doing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17749330
Which is not "complete control" and that was the point I was arguing against. That having source code access enables you to gain some control over your own life is not a point I was arguing against.
Additionally another point: even if you fork you can't keep that fork alive without manpower. Nowadays all the dependencies and apis change all the time as well.
The purpose of the open source requirement is so that many other people -- some much smarter than I am, and others only a little smarter than I am -- can figure out what is going on, and then post warnings to me about why I should avoid it.
Chromium-based, actively developed, and has Android+iOS browsers. You can use chrome extensions with it too.
What is it's selling point?
If you’re afraid of them not having enough resource or not caring enough to maintain it, the company has deep pocket and won’t disappear tomorrow.
I know naver mainly as a chat app, and it was pretty good and hugely popular in Asia at a point. There was a huge account leak a few years ago, so I guess they also should be battle tested now.
Basically it could be a strong independent browser vendor mainly interesting in capturing users in their ecosystem.
More information about AppImage: https://appimage.org/
Seems like a win-win.
I’m okay with them hijacking ads if that allows them to succeed and thrive.
There are humans on the other side producing that content, they have as much right for being compensated for their efforts as we do.
I'm extremely satisfied that ad blocking is spreading ever more rapidly simply because I think that's the most direct way to get out of this current model of profit that leads to so many awful things. The fundamental problem is that with ad based model your customer is no longer the person actually consuming your material, but the advertiser. That, in turn, introduces 'sponsored' content, ads misleadingly ran as actual content, bias in views presented, external censorship of content to remain in the spirit of the advertiser, extensive tracking and data mining of users, and all these other lovely things. Good riddance.
What cake and eat it too? There is just Content producers producing content that they want to be compensated for and the industry agreed upon best way to do that for serving a mainstream audience is to publish free content with supporting ads.
> the onus of change is not on the consumer to make ads more profitable, but on the producer to find what is.
Wait so instead of doing what they're good at, content producers should individually be tasked with investing their resources in experimenting with different economic models to try find a viable alternative to serving content without ads? The sites with a large enough content catalog are already doing this with subscriptions, some others are using patreon, consider utilizing their ad-free content alternative when available instead of cutting off their only revenue source.
And I want to be compensated for writing HN comments. Alas, just because I want to be compensated for something, doesn't mean I will be. Content producers feeling entitled to compensation for their free and public content are kind of forgetting the content consumers have agency too.
> and the industry agreed upon best way to do that for serving a mainstream audience is to publish free content with supporting ads.
Just because it works, doesn't mean it's not wrong. Just because it worked for now, doesn't mean it'll keep on working. Nobody is entitled to their business model working forever, or at all.
> Wait so instead of doing what they're good at, content producers should individually be tasked with investing their resources in experimenting with different economic models to try find a viable alternative to serving content without ads?
Yes. They have the content, and want to exchange it for money. It's literally their job to figure out how to do this.
> The sites with a large enough content catalog are already doing this with subscriptions, some others are using patreon
Good. As it should be.
> consider utilizing their ad-free content alternative when available instead of cutting off their only revenue source.
Again, not my responsibility. Especially given that the social contract of the Web is, by design, that if your server responds with 200 OK + data, I get to render that data however I like.
The ad-blocker won't load the ad at all for two reasons.
1) Performance. Less to load (and process, and render, etc) means faster load times, less bandwidth consumption, lower CPU usage (think about all those extra scripts), etc.
2) Privacy. If your computer contacts the ad network at all, then it could track you.
Because the blocker fundamentally can't load the ad or contact the respective network while also doing its job, triggering a payment would seem to be more or less impossible.
Not at all. Most of the industry moved away from CPC a while ago due to how dodgy it skews data. Most clicks end up being bots on shady websites Vs actual people. Viewabilty is what the good agencies are advertising against now; with the hope that you'll navigate to the advertiser's site down the line.
They have a right to ask for compensation, and a right to require it. They have no right to be compensated, if they choose to give away the content for free. That would be saying they have a right to force people to be generous.
Whining about ad-blockers is simply being manipulative, it's trying to guilt-trip people into abandoning their self interest for free. The implicit social contract of the Web, the way HTTP protocol and Web browsers were designed, is precisely what allows for ad-blocking. Browsers are user agents, and what you send in response to a HTTP request is mine to render how I like. Publishers have a proper, correct way to ensure compensation on the Web - it's called a paywall. I pay, then I get content. But they prefer ads, because it's easier. It's easier to bleed people out of their sanity (and privacy) than to ask for money. It's easier not having to write quality content that would be worth paying for. But that's a choice publishers make.
This is the most important point: nobody is entitled to their business model working. If ads aren't working for you, change your business model.
Your attestation usage of "manipulative" is attempting to manipulate in itself. Like I said everyone is technically free to do what they want, but it doesn't change the fact that starving content producers of micro ad revenue goes against their wishes which in most cases deprives them of their sole revenue source.
> The implicit social contract of the Web, the way HTTP protocol and Web browsers were designed, is precisely what allows for ad-blocking.
No the web is not a social contract, it's a combination of technologies. The social contract exists between Content Producers and Consumers and the Web is the platform to enable delivery of that content. The implicit social contract is for Content producers to create content consumers want which is consumed in the way they want their content served. A "blocker" by definition blocks supporting resources that producers wanted their content served with - which in most cases is their primary revenue source for producing that content.
> it's called a paywall. I pay, then I get content.
Great, then use it when that option is available, as a benefit you wont see ads and producers get compensated.
But I hope you're not naive enough to think that a paywall works for all content and all audiences? It's great when it does, content producers get a reliable and predictable source of revenue but there's a reason why ad-supported free content is used, it's not because it's easier, it's because it's viable.
Content creators have been acting like assholes and now they're seeing the consequences.
Crying crocodile tears of unfairness won't change that, it's just wasting people's time. If those content creators can't get people to pay for their content, it means their content is worthless.
The implicit social contract is for Content producers to create content consumers want which is consumed in the way they want their content served.
I certainly agree with you that content producers should have a mechanism for the possibility of revenue, but this is a two way street. Advertising networks have worked for some things , but are becoming more and more invasive, and hence more and more problematic. If enough people reject the model, content producers need to be either looking for a new model or looking for ways to improve this one. This stuff isn't rocket science.
Choice of revenue source is, well, a choice. It's not like we're talking about some poor third-world kids, for whom the only choice is between starvation and building ad-powered content farms. It's all just people who asked themselves, "how can I make me some money?", and out of countless of possible business models, chose this particular one, which is giving stuff away for free, attaching a malicious secondary payload to it, and hoping that this secondary payload will generate some money.
> No the web is not a social contract, it's a combination of technologies.
It's that combination of technologies that create this contract. Those technologies create a particular platform, with particular set of rules. It provides ways of giving things away, as well as asking for compensation. It provides ways of saying "strings attached". Unfortunately, many people choose to use the "give things away, no strings attached" path and then, after giving a thing away, demand to be paid. And it's even fine, as long as they realize many people will just brush their latter demand away, as it's silly and improper.
> The implicit social contract is for Content producers to create content consumers want which is consumed in the way they want their content served.
Oh, no no no. Not the last part. Why on Earth I, as a consumer, would agree to a producer dictating how I consume the content after I get it? I have the right to consume it the way I want, and the Web tech stack is built around preserving this right. The producer's right is to structure the content for particular consumption. A paywall, or showing ads before content, or dumping it all in a PDF, is a way of doing that. The consumer's right is to destructure what they get and consume it the way they like.
(As an analogy - if a restaurant wants me to not eat tomatoes, it's free to offers only meals without them. But it would be ridiculous for them to serve me tomatoes and then have a waiter hovering over me, ensuring I don't eat them. Or a waiter dictating I have to eat all of the things on my plate, and in a particular sequence.)
> Great, then use it when that option is available, as a benefit you wont see ads and producers get compensated.
Offer it to me, and I shall use it if I want your content badly enough, or not use it and go elsewhere. That's fair.
> I hope you're not naive enough to think that a paywall works for all content and all audiences?
I'm not. Fortunately, there are alternatives, including donations/patronage, or writing your content off as marketing expense for something else (e.g. articles published for free in hope you'll buy the author's book on the same topic, or just publishing in order to gather trust and goodwill).
(EDIT: and also, there's the elephant in the room - a lot of content can exists solely because of ads. Or, in other words, it couldn't be monetized in any other way. Why? Because it's crap. If that content dies off completely, I say good riddance.)
> there's a reason why ad-supported free content is used, it's not because it's easier, it's because it's viable
It's viable for now (and becoming less so, hence all the whining about ad-blockers). But so is polluting rivers when you're running a factory. Just because something is viable, doesn't mean it's good.
I agree with your statements above. Just pointing out that revenue is not the automatic goal of every human endeavor.
Some minds are just completely warped.
So I block all ads and all trackers.
I keep one browser in vanilla condition in case I run into a government site that won't work with the blockers.
Most don't offer that choice.
> There are humans on the other side producing that content, they have as much right for being compensated for their efforts as we do.
I think I missed that right in our constitution--you must respect other's wishes to impose ads on the content that is otherwise freely accessible on the internet. A “right” is hardly the right word—“social courtesy” may be better.
(I know that stealing from white man is bad, third worlder in a far away land is not bad but I'm too autistic for the hypocrisy our society lives by)
And that's great if a large volume of your visitors are using Brave, but that's certainly not the case for us. Granted, this is anecdata, but I suspect that it holds true for many other sites.
(On a personal note, I'm afraid I object to Brave simply on the basis of its gratingly pretentious name: I've known plenty of people who are brave, whether it's because of things they've done, or because of terrible suffering they've endured, but I'm afraid I see nothing about that web browser to justify the name.)
I wouldn't blame you.
In any case, this is more of an ethical preference than a serious statement about the viability about Brave's specific monetization model... any product that gives the consumer more choice without entirely depriving people of revenue is welcome to me.
I'm not affiliated with Brave, but IIRC that requires opt-in from both the owner of the user AND the website. So it seems like a bit of a stretch to call it hijacking, when the website, ads are being "hijacked" from needs to opt-in to this.
Where is the opt-in from the website who are getting their ads blocked/replaced?
The idea is to remove the coercion from ads. Users will earn 70% of all gross ad revenue. The remaining 30% will be split between publisher and the browser.
Users can get paid to tolerate ads, or they can choose to see no ads. If users see ads then users, the browser, and sites all earn money. If they don't then nobody earns money and they get to experience an ad free internet.
> With Brave, publishers get around 55% of revenues: 15% go to Brave, 15% go to the partner that serves the ads, and 10% to 15% goes back to the user
So they went from 55% for the publisher... to 15%?
I can't immediately find a source for the publisher opt-in thing. But brave definitely hasn't been doing anything like that in 2016 as your articles suggest, because they only just started now with beta testing brave ads. From my personal testing of brave a couple of times, with the ad opt-in activated, I have also never seen this happening.
And publishers (now) seem willing to join.
Its CEO announced more details about their source code:
Their UI code is source-available proprietary software.
I.E. not downloadable. That's neither open nor open-source.
Maybe a bit more "punk" (no company, OSS effort).
Going from old Opera to Vivaldi feels like switching from Sublime to some Electron garbage.
Is this run by a passion of ex Opera CEO?
If this is just a struggle without enough business model to back it to last at least 10 years, I don't think it counts as an alternative.
Android doesn't have any such restrictions so Firefox on Android are able to use their Gecko engine.
A mobile browser is a completely different Application then a Desktop browser so you're still going to be using a different "Browser" Application, so I guess I don't understand why my choice for using the built-in Safari on iOS would impact which Desktop browser I'd choose to use?
Because you're not clear on what exactly your grievances are with Vivalidi/Brave/Opera using the Blink rendering engine and how exactly does using Safari on iOS or Firefox on Android enforce Google data collection?
> It's not just about Chrome. Decoupling Google services from Chromium is more than about Chrome itself, it's a backlash against Google and data collection at large.
You need to read up on what Chromium is, its an Open Source Chromium browser Chrome is built on without Google Services (i.e. what Chrome is). A large differentiator for Vivaldi and Brave is their privacy first browsers that don't track you:
> You could just promote Firefox instead of Vivaldi, but you didn't. Why not?
Because the whole premise of the article is for making a modified Chromium browser fork, when they could instead use one of the existing actively developed Chromium browsers founded by browser engineers. I have no issue with Firefox which I use as my secondary browser, but the replacement for my main browser Chrome would need to be another Blink-based browser.
But I still have no idea what the rendering engine used in Mobile browsers has to do with anything.
What kind of problem? It makes web browsing stable as the internal engine is tested by Apple without third party bringing their own with updates at random moments and from web developer's perspective, they get a predictable result within iOS without effort and from those, I don't see a problem from users' perspective too.
Maybe you work for Mozilla.
> Maybe you work for Mozilla.
Maybe you're a lazy web developer.
The only thing I miss on iPhone is Gecko. I often run into website that doesn't render properly in Safari and at that point I want to have an alternative rendering engine that would solve the problem. Currently I have to find a desktop computer for it.
This has become such a problem lately, because some of the websites I often use and need to get important information from have this issue, so I always have to be sure that I'll have desktop computer around or carry an Android tablet with me.
Next time I buy a phone, it will be Android unless Apple changes their policy on browser rendering engine. If I knew this worked the way it works, I would have never bought the iPhone in the first place.
Anyone remember the 1980s Apple commercial referencing Big Brother? Hilarious in hindsight.
Interesting. Isn't that what Microsoft was tried and convicted for in the 90s?
No, Microsoft was tried and convicted for illegally leveraging an existing monopoly.
The particular actions weren't necessarily illegal outside of the context of a pre-existing monopoly.
Chromium may be open source, but its development is controlled by Google. Unless you have Google-like resources available, you won't be able to create a meaningful fork that your less technically savvy users can benefit from.
"Ungoogled" Chromium is a trap. Use another browser. Use Firefox. Use Safari. Heck, use Edge (aka the new IExplorer).
Because lets stop beating around the bush ... Chrome is the new IExplorer 6.
If you're developing against Chrome/Chromium, particularly "works in Chrome" instead of developing against the published Web standards, you're support Google & Chrome.
WebRTC and some of the more mercurial APIs might be a challenge though.
Devs don't optimize for Chrome because they're evil, they do it because a vast majority of users use Chrome and they know that. So both parties can do their part.
For neutral email apps, Firefox runs perfectly fine. For Gmail, it will be slightly slower than Chrome.
Gmail is still okay once past the 2-3s loading but on YT it really test your patience every time you click on something.
P.S. But we should all switch to PeerTube or a similar effort eventually.
1 - https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-class...
It's not about your twelve friends who use GMail, or even your hundred GitHub collaborators who use GMail. It's about the entire rest of the Internet, which is still there, living happily outside your bubble.
For every person who does not think this way, society is better off.
I'd actually like a fork of chromium with no googley phone home features. Maybe put timeouts on cookies and bunch of other things.
On https://browserbench.org/Speedometer2.0/ (usual benchmark caveats apply) Chrome scored 68.7 and FF scored 50.
That was on Fedora 28 on a ThinkPad (i7-7700HQ), I was surprised at the delta between the two tbh.
I'm only posting because the plural of anecdote is data.
The new upcoming part is Servo, the rendering engine written in Rust.
So for developing I still prefer Chrome. Besides that Firefox since quantum been very nice.
Darwin (MacOS kernel and subsystem) is also open source.
I guess this has more flags set up by default, and it makes it easier to target a stable commit to compile against.
Also as a word of caution, don't use ungoogled-chromium binaries - they never are fully official/confirmed/reproducible. Running opaque blobs from strangers defeats the purpose of leaving Chrome for increasing privacy.
Just bite the bullet and run the 2h compilation process yourself.
I don't think that's the best use of everyone's time or energy. Not to mention, it may be more error prone, or even insecure depending on what your base system is like. And you'll have to track updates. It seems like chromium is problematic to build in general. Debian hasn't marked it as reproducible. It is also not clear if it is possible to build it for Android using a Foss stack. Various efforts to include chromium or derivatives in Fdroid have failed.
Seems like there's a simple solution to this dilemma. Assuming build time is the single determining factor:
If the value of two hours' build time overnight is less than the value of a privacy-enabled build of Chrome, then build Ungoogled Chromium overnight.
Else, get Firefox.
Most people running macOS (as vemv at least is) run a lot of random binaries from various types of strangers – mostly proprietary applications, although there's also things like Homebrew cached binaries, 'curl | sh' installers, etc. Now, in this case downloading a binary isn't necessary, since there's the option of building it yourself. That's great, and it's definitely (somewhat) safer to build it yourself... but that doesn't make the binary less trustworthy than if that weren't an option. If building sounds like too much effort, you shouldn't automatically give up on using the program, but just fall back to your personal baseline policy for running binaries. And for a lot of people, for better or worse, I think that policy is fairly trusting.
That's wildly different from the typical CI-built binary.
Fixed in rattlesnakeos-stack
 "A cross platform tool that provisions all of the AWS infrastructure required to build your own privacy focused Android OS on a continuous basis with OTA updates." https://github.com/dan-v/rattlesnakeos-stack
This is the most current fdroid issue from what I can tell:
Edit: that's really well done - https://github.com/dan-v/rattlesnakeos-stack#how-much-does-t...
Most people's VPS won't have enough RAM to run the Android builld process.
Unless you’re reading every line of code yourself before compiling it, I’d say you’re no safer going you’re route than downloading the binaries offered from the same source.
Binaries which are unofficial to even ungoogled-chromium itself surpass my threshold of trust.
But yes, one could take a further step and extract the interesting bits from this project and apply them to the official Chromium trunk.
Sadly I have no arbitrarily deep audit in place. I just try to pick solid projects, and assume / quickly check that their dependencies don't suck.
Also I'm particularly cautious with npm (as opposed to rubygems or clojars).
I should be looking into either (or both of):
- setting up a multi-user macOS ('me' + 'admin' + 'dev'. I normally operate under 'me'. sudo is only ever executed under 'admin'. Developer tooling is installed for 'dev', an account which cannot access the rest of the filesystem)
- using Docker and/or a VM for all dev activity, as a sandbox.
EDIT: never mind, I was wrong
On the other hand, `ungoogled-chromium` is a set of patches for Chromium that removes every Google feature/integration/service from the code.
I don't know enough of the guts of Chromium and Chrome to know if it covers everything, but seems comprehensive to my naive eye.
On mobile, no Chrome Sync without the official builds, so I cede all my privacy there. :'(
Disabling ipv6 has nothing to do with de-googling Chrome.
What is it with people disabling rather than fixing their ipv6 config (and then possibly complaining about slow adoption)?
-// Google DNS address used for IPv6 probes.
+/* RIPE NCC k.root-servers.net. 2001:7fd::1 (anycasted) */
So that's not it.
I have no idea how the Debian project is financed. So I don't know if it is possible for them to assign resources to it.
But Debian has a strong history of being trustworthy. So a userfriendly browser maintained by them would be nice.
That said Debian does take it seriously when it comes to privacy and security so you can always report bugs on such. Do note that Debian's Chromium builds have always disabled the infamous "mic always on" option which Chromium has (or had, didn't check) by default.
Btw, Debian now moved to gitlab hosting (their own instance salsa.debian.org) so it should be much easier to contribute to Debian now. :)
P.S. while Debian Developer myself, I stay away a lot from browser and especially Chromium, and I always suggest Firefox (it has really got better last year or so).
it should be much easier to contribute to Debian now
Not only are there other browsers like Firefox and Safari, but there are other Chromium-based browsers like Vivaldi and Opera.
I would have liked to read about some expected use-cases in the readme.
It's been interesting to experience Internet Explorer, then Firefox, Chrome, and finally coming back to operating system default browsers with Edge and Safari and being perfectly content.
The leverage Microsoft and Apple are utilizing with their operating system ecosystems is fairly pleasant, creating better out of the box experiences. Installing more software just feels like such a nit-picky user experience that I don't want, especially with refreshing my systems now and again.
I am using 2017 because 2018 is not over yet
>Allows you to sign in to two different accounts on the same site.
Allows you to isolate your sites from one another, by containerizing tabs.
Allows you to avoid leaving a social networking footprint to keep those sites from tracking you.
But yeah the containers are fucking amazing. I use them for development to log in as multiple user types at the same time.
Also, it should be easy to "reset and switch" a website from one container into another while leaving no traces that it's been in another container. I often load a website in no container or in another container, and then I use another plugin to switched it to where it should be. This should be a default feature.
I'm still not happy with how AMP operates. Seems like it will mess up the interwebs. Something on IPFS along with tighter usage of compression and markup compliance is likely a better solution than AMP.
You realize Mozilla makes good documentation but get how it has enough money to do so. They have too much money for what they do.
Firefox has no websockets inspector which chrome has but it does have a CSS grid view tool which chrome doesn't have. There was a bunch of new improvements to the Firefox dev tools recently but I haven't checked them out yet.
Things like getting all event listeners for a DOM element (with inspectable closure variable values), local workspaces, blackboxing files and folders, async-spanning stack traces, saving CSS/JS edits to source files, document event breakpoints...
Vivaldi is the new browser by ex-Opera people.