- cross-posted to:
- browsers@lemmy.ml
- technology@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- browsers@lemmy.ml
- technology@lemmy.zip
If you are keen on personal privacy, you might have come across Brave Browser. Brave is a Chromium-based browser that promises to deliver privacy with built-in ad-blocking and content-blocking protection. It also offers several quality-of-life features and services, like a VPN and Tor access. I mean, it’s even listed on the reputable PrivacyTools website. Why am I telling you to steer clear of this browser, then?
Removed by mod
Wait, what?
Two things:
When did Librewolf stop development?
On funding, they say in their FAQ:
Librewolf seems to very consciously not looking for “resources” from advertising or donations, or etc. The only resource they seem to want is motivation.
Which I think is one of the big issues with OSS projects - many are based around a very small number of people being motivated to work on something for free. And it dies if that stops.
I think that having expectations and funding to continue is important, like you say.
But I’m still confused about what you mean by the “resources” comment re: Librewolf.
Removed by mod
That thread is several months old, and is specifically about integrating Arkenfox settings changes. I wouldn’t say Librewolf has ceased development based on the fact that their default settings differ from Arkenfox. Their Codeberg site shows ongoing work.
Removed by mod
Found Brendan Eich’s alt account
Removed by mod
Collaborating with Arkenfox on default settings was nice, but wasn’t fundamental to the goals of the project. You can look at their Codeberg to see that the latest activity was a few days ago, and there have been several releases since the date of the thread you linked.
It’s still being kept up to date, just not getting new features, and the security issues have been patched up as they come along. It’s not a dead project yet. Maintaining Librewolf isn’t impossible since Firefox is doing the heavy lifting.
The main issue is mostly that it relies on Firefox.
Honestly, I don’t mind the paid browser route. Browsers, and a lot of software, used to be paid, and it feels like things were less shit when some of it was.
I think ideally we’d see 2 versions of software like some used to be in the 90s - a free, stripped down version that only does basic functions (think Microsoft WordPad Vs Microsoft Word) and a pair full version. This model can still allow FOSS to exist as well, like perhaps having LibreOffice as is, and then having an enterprise version that has additional networking features and support that’s paid for businesses, with all money from that going into the maintenance of LibreOffice.
Oh SHIT. I had a feeling since months, as an end-user, that something wasn’t going well. But damn, i did not know that was that bad.
Thanks.
I can somewhat understand the overall criticism, because Librewolf - as far as my understanding goes - would be in trouble without the work being done on the code upstream.
Personally, I know that this does not exist (yet), and to some people that put privacy above everything else with a more libertarian slant, this might sound like the worst option imaginable, but my “dream” way to handle it within the current economic system would be:
Have an open source, FOSS base, web-engine and all, developed with public funds similar to public broadcasting in many countries (Bonus if carried by international organisations instead of just national. Think a UN institution like UNESCO or WHO, but focused on making the internet accessible neutrally and to all). On top of that code, projects that want to put privacy above all else could still feasibly built projects like LibreWolf (an even Brave), relying somewhat comfortably on secure fundamentals.
I know, sounds like a dream, which it is at this point. But every other solution within the current economic status quo I personally thin of, I see no chance of enshittification not always encroaching and creating crises, if not outright taking over.
Removed by mod
I think that is utlimately valid - although I think the other options are all coming with their own problems. You will then have to instead live with the interests of tech corporations (including nonprofits who ultimately need funding) and advertisers collecting your data, whose interests will ultimately not be much less malignant - or small free software projects of a sometimes quite limited scope. The latter, I think, is also a valid niché, but will leave the overall standards of the internet to corporate interests.
Considering how the CEO here acts for Brave, in my opinion, this is not simply about him being an asshole or being politically questionable. To me - everything about him screams “grifter taking advantage of people’s legitimate concerns” - and he has a material interest in your data as well. Brave always felt to me like trying to sell and market privacy instead of proving to me, in their fundamentals, that they actually have my interests in mind.
Which is why I, personally, do not really understand choosing Brave above LibreWolf (or Tor Browse, occasionally), if privacy is your #1 priority.
But that didn’t answer my questions
Oh, yes, it wasn’t a direct answer, also, I’m not the person you answered to. Ultimately, my comment was more meant as an overall addition to the discussion, building on the idea of what a solution to:
might be.
But as answers to your two points. #1 - I have no idea where they got that from, myself #2 - I think you answered that one yourself rather well, and I wanted to build on that one.
Sorry if that was confusing, my brain is also good at confusing myself at times, can’t imagine how that is for others at times.
I missed you weren’t the person I responded to. Thank you.
No browser is sustainable without money because
Removed by mod
A Web browser is a complex piece of SW that needs to provide many, many, features and work with great performance. Therefore you need a large team of experienced developers (full-time and maybe volunteers) collaborating on the development and testing. This is cost in labor and infrastructures (servers, storage, internet connection, hosting of platforms, etc)
One such feature that is a must-have is playing videos, from YouTube, Netflix, Prime, Twitch and what have you. Most widely spread video codecs are proprietary, you need a license to implement the decoder and these licenses are expensive. H.264 is one such codec, very widely spread across many content and platforms. You wouldn’t want a web browser that lacks the ability to decode H.264 videos. There are many such codecs that are considered essential, and this cost a lot of money in total.
In conclusion, this is an argument as why developing a web browser costs money and requires a sustainable financial plan, even though it is open-source and developed mostly by volunteers.
My personal opinion: advertisement sucks. I don’t want it anywhere in my life. I would prefer to pay upfront for my web browser if it come to this.
Removed by mod
kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml is supporting your argument.
Removed by mod
My take: We can have an open source browser. No resources are required. We don’t need ads to view content we make. There is no need for a megacorp or any entity taking money and controlling us.
Removed by mod
Okay are you ready?
The model:
Removed by mod
I understood perfectly, your claim is that it takes advertisement. Not time. And nobody has said it doesn’t take time.
Removed by mod
Since when did LibreWolf stop development? First I heard of it, and concerning if accurate.
Removed by mod
I remember they saying the were too swamped to take on an Android version after Mull dev stopped, which is not the same as stopping. Mull actually stopped development, LibreWolf didn’t - they should not be mentioned in the same sentence like that.
Removed by mod