Not that bashing Chrome or Googme bothers me, I made my own attempt at that recently, but no need to discuss the same article twice?
Firefox's version is alright at the moment, but not nearly as polished.
Just use both. Use firefox for everything but keep chrome for development and potentially any google services you use. You really want to segment that anyway.
Edit: Not the web browser. I believe the current surveillance practices are dangerous to a free world. Hence the analogy with the train that goes to a bad place.
And newsbinator was talking about some feature, which is important but nowhere near the main issue. Hence the comfy chairs.
Can somebody explain why am I being downvoted?
Or if you use it frequently, just type 'd' and it'll be the first result.
As for the name, I call it DDG, which is also what I call David de Gea :-)
I might need to compile on it my own
Iridium looks outdated too https://iridiumbrowser.de/downloads/windows
They're both super nice... but really I liked chrome.
I wonder if a fork will occur to keep chrome manifest open to adblockers .. in which case I would be super happy.
Firefox doesn't support cookies or what?
>Firefox isn’t perfect – it still defaults searches to Google and permits some other tracking. But it doesn’t share browsing data with Mozilla, which isn’t in the data-collection business.
Much worse, it shares browsing data, including full URL history, with third parties. https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-i...
Not on my Debian.
Firefox is free software, the community can always work around bad ideas.
It'd be more honest to write an article about Firefox breaking bad internet standards in the interest of the user, and another one about internet tracking being out of control.
Chrome has issues, and it'd be good if it blocked more cookies by default, but the headline here is way overblown.
The headline might even be apt with a different article! But it seems we all want to be believe the headline so much that we didn't read past it.
Edit: the article this was duped into has a much better headline.
> For example, whether it's YouTube, Amazon, Wikipedia, or any other site with its own search function, all I have to do is start typing "yout," Chrome will automatically fill it out to youtube.com with an option to press Tab to automatically start searching youtube from the address bar.
The workaround in firefox is described in the above page, and basically pre-saving sites as bookmarked search engines.
Chrome is free software, you're not being forced to use it, there are alternatives, the most relevant ones are even using the same engine.
It's like everyone is trying to capture some unique visitors because they know it works: $service is spying on you.
> the most relevant ones are even using the same engine
Firefox is very relevant.
Also, Google isn't exactly a randomly sampled spying $service. It is probably one of top two offenders in this regard.
When did that happen?
Chromium is free software. Chrome isn't, by any stretch of imagination.
Chrome might be provided without cost but it is certainly not free software. It is proprietary.
Isn't this all just entire ideological, I don't see what cost I incur if Google knows that I visited hackernews, listen to bowie on youtube and like podcasts
For example, even seemingly benign page visits, like apolitical YouTube videos and shopping data can probably be combined with location history to infer political affiliation with good accuracy with some basic machine learning. That kind of data only needs to be collected once, and it's out there forever.
Now imagine the wrong authoritarian party gains access to such data in 5 or 10 years, and now knows that you've spent your life going to church and watching gun videos, or that you visited a planned Parenthood clinic and listened to a strongly liberal artist.
Privacy has a value on a one to one basis. That's why no one is going to give you their phone, yet they will make dissonant statements online. And privacy has a far higher value on a societal basis for a democratic society.
Surveillance capitalism is anti-democratic, hugely abusive and solely for the profit of a few. These are bad actors. That's why societal rule of law needs to kick in but as we know money and greed creates its own logic so that may take time. And till then there will be no shortage of apologists with a vested interest in surveillance trying to 'normalize' it.
There's no one pushing Google down its users' throats. Yet people ask Google to behave like they want. Well, surprise! Google is a private entity and they'll do whatever they want. If you don't like it, leave. I left a long time ago but I believe these claims are unfair to Google.
We are being bombarded with "Google's x product is a monopoly". No they are not. There are tons of alternatives to anyone of Google's services. The thing is, they do it better than their alternatives. Free market, my friend.
If x alternative to a Google's service gets better, people will gravitate towards it. But don't ask people to drop the better product in order to give (undeserved) attention to the not-so-great one. Earn it!
People also complain about Google making their services' sites suck on other browsers. Well, their site, their rules. Not so long ago all online services had dedicated clients instead of web apps. Those apps weren't called "monopolies", yet there was no alternative client. Because the root of the monopoly argument lies in the "service", if there are no alternatives to the "service", now we are talking, but there's no monopoly in the "client". If you don't like the "client", drop the service.
If you are forwarding it, you will know who to reply to and let them know to update their address book.
I give you a precious bit of information than blew my mind: if you move to a new email, you don't have to nuke the previous one. You can still access it and lose nothing important. I had 10 years of history too and yesterday I had to lookup a receipt and I was like: "ah, it's all still there, the email apocalypse that I envisioned was all in my head".
I stopped using chrome for a while and have been using Brave.
A note on this WaPo story: I spent an hour with the reporter on the phone on 6/13 and practically wrote whole sentences in the piece. I've been calling Chrome spyware since last year. For some reason the piece ended up excluding not only Brave but Safari, which has deep anti-tracking history. Anyway, the story is getting out, and consciousness does not go backward.
Brave has been built directly upon Chromium since December 2018.
Here's the first link from a search https://www.reddit.com/r/BATProject/comments/9tsg2h/i_didnt_...
On this occasion:
* I immediately closed Chrome I was using to read the post,
* unpinned Chrome from the dock leaving only Firefox, and reopened my page in FF.
For some reason, the third time something clicked.
It’s slow to adopt new standards and a pain to develop for, but as a bit of consumer software it’s the best browser out there IMO.
I don't see why number of commits would be anything but an extremely weak proxy for estimating power consumption, certainly not anything to cause surprise. A very strange thing to say by a self-described "rationalist". "Optimizations" is a very wide term you've used. Unless you are specifically targeting power consumption, it's quite possible to optimize for speed and markedly increase power consumption.
Even as an user, if I want adblock, it will launch separate application, with separate dock icon. That's so un-Apple, as if they didn't want you to use it.
I find Firefox's Dev Tools far better, except the JS debugging tab, which is behind Chrome's on almost all counts.
It could be undone, but those frackers at Google make it so easy. And so much is built off of Gmail as the mail service.