6 ms·

I wish I could use Vivaldi, it seems like a nice browser for power users. Unfortunately it's closed source (besides the Webkit parts). Considering how much sens

I wish I could use Vivaldi, it seems like a nice browser for power users. Unfortunately it's closed source (besides the Webkit parts). Considering how much sensitive information goes through a browser nowadays, I would never consider something closed source. I'm sure Vivaldi has no intentions of becoming "evil" like Google, but because of its closed source nature it wouldn't be hard to slip a tracker or two in the browser and regular users would be none the wiser.

roblabla 9y ago
I don't know what browser you're using, but assuming chrome : it's not open source either. Chromium is open source, but Google Chrome is proprietary, much in the same way vivaldi is. If you want a truly open source modern browser, the only options are chromium or firefox these days, AFAIK ? (If you know an alternative I'm interested !)
- jhasse 9y ago
  On Linux there are quite a few other options e.g. Eolie. https://github.com/gnumdk/eolie https://github.com/gnumdk/eolie On Android I can recommend Lightning: https://github.com/anthonycr/Lightning-Browser https://github.com/anthonycr/Lightning-Browser
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
  I don't think it's fair to assume that someone who is calling for a browser to be open sourced is using Chrome rather than Chromium.
- TwoBit 9y ago
  Why assume Chrome? Most likely he uses Firefox.
- lmm 9y ago
  Konqueror is still around (it's where the chrome rendering engine originally came from), and IMO still the best.
- 482794793792894 9y ago
  And Chromium as an open-source project is known to contain trackers. Well, known by some people at least. Here's a fork trying to fix that: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium As for other modern open-source browsers, http://otter-browser.org/ http://otter-browser.org/ is still in relatively early development AFAIK, but sort of like Vivaldi, it's trying to recreate Opera 12.
Endy 9y ago
Unlike you, it's the open-source parts of Vivaldi I'm most afraid of. I trust them to support their users and I believe they desire to have users who trust & respect them. I don't trust people who are more code-savvy than I am (that's most people) not to insert or exploit weaknesses in open-source software or other open code. With closed-source software, I know the origin point of the software I install, I know the names of the individuals or teams who developed it, and therefore I know who stands behind it, because their reputation is based on that released software working. If something goes wrong, I can take clear action because I know who is to blame, e.g. Vivaldi, Microsoft, etc. With open-source software, that liability for the software developer is thus offloaded to "the community", and users have no viable recourse - meaning that attacks on open-source software are a lot safer for the individual attacker. I support 100% closed-source development and extended release schedules. Open source & rapid development / release scares the daylights out of me. Too many people can see it, too many people can make changes, and it's happening way too fast.
- prophesi 9y ago
  Both open-source and closed-source have their problems. Closed Source: - Team behind it could add trackers, backdoors, etc that are difficult to detect. - Attackers could find an exploit that will go unnoticed and unfixed for an indeterminable length of time. Or perhaps use the team's own aforementioned exploits/backdoors. - Can't tell if their app is well-tested and well-written, which means it could be a buggy hot mess from the get-go. Which is the most common reason for hiding source from my anecdotal experience. Open Source: - Much easier for anyone to find a bug, including attackers. You'd hope the maintainers/community will find the bug before them, or at least take less time to fix it than if it were closed-source. - Attackers could add their own exploit that will go unnoticed or unfixed for an indeterminable length of time. I think the conclusion to draw from is: Closed Source = less likely for attackers to find bugs, but more likely for bugs to persist. Can only trust in the company's reputation for code quality. Open Source = more likely for attackers to find bugs, but less likely for bugs to persist. Don't need to trust the company's reputation for code quality.
  - xerophyte12932 9y ago
BartSaM 9y ago
Closed source sometimes is better than an open source. With open source code, certain agencies can find exploits and use them to track every move you make, months and years before anyone spotted it. With closed source, you have more chance, at least if you believe in humans, that you will stay anonymous. But to be honest, as soon as such company would go public, get major funding from one of the big companies, or get a new, famous CEO - run away.
- FridgeSeal 9y ago
  > Closed source sometimes is better than an open source. With open source code, certain agencies can find exploits and use them to track every move you make, months and years before anyone spotted it Haha yeah, as opposed to close source, where no one spots it. Or if they do, you have no idea whether it ever gets fixed or not. Not exactly a better alternative.
Ndymium 9y ago
Vivaldi is readable source, though, as the non-chromium parts are made with HTML and JS that are not obfuscated AFAIK. So it's the same trust factor as open source, albeit with probably somewhat less people looking at the source (plenty do tinker with the code, though, to modify their browser).
- Sylos 9y ago
  It's mostly the same trust factor as Chromium or in general Apache-, MIT- and similarly licensed open-source software has. It is not the same trust factor as Firefox or in general GPL-, MPL- and similarly licensed open-source software has. The latter, so-called copyleft-licenses, actively prevent someone from adding closed-source code to the open-source code-base or to relicense the entire code under a less strict license. Vivaldi's license does not. They could start shipping non-readable code at any point.
knowThySelfx 9y ago
What about Brave?

roblabla 9y ago

I don't know what browser you're using, but assuming chrome : it's not open source either. Chromium is open source, but Google Chrome is proprietary, much in the same way vivaldi is. If you want a truly open source modern browser, the only options are chromium or firefox these days, AFAIK ? (If you know an alternative I'm interested !)

jhasse 9y ago
On Linux there are quite a few other options e.g. Eolie. https://github.com/gnumdk/eolie https://github.com/gnumdk/eolie On Android I can recommend Lightning: https://github.com/anthonycr/Lightning-Browser https://github.com/anthonycr/Lightning-Browser
Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
I don't think it's fair to assume that someone who is calling for a browser to be open sourced is using Chrome rather than Chromium.
TwoBit 9y ago
Why assume Chrome? Most likely he uses Firefox.
lmm 9y ago
Konqueror is still around (it's where the chrome rendering engine originally came from), and IMO still the best.
482794793792894 9y ago
And Chromium as an open-source project is known to contain trackers. Well, known by some people at least. Here's a fork trying to fix that: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium As for other modern open-source browsers, http://otter-browser.org/ http://otter-browser.org/ is still in relatively early development AFAIK, but sort of like Vivaldi, it's trying to recreate Opera 12.

Endy 9y ago

Unlike you, it's the open-source parts of Vivaldi I'm most afraid of. I trust them to support their users and I believe they desire to have users who trust & respect them. I don't trust people who are more code-savvy than I am (that's most people) not to insert or exploit weaknesses in open-source software or other open code. With closed-source software, I know the origin point of the software I install, I know the names of the individuals or teams who developed it, and therefore I know who stands behind it, because their reputation is based on that released software working. If something goes wrong, I can take clear action because I know who is to blame, e.g. Vivaldi, Microsoft, etc. With open-source software, that liability for the software developer is thus offloaded to "the community", and users have no viable recourse - meaning that attacks on open-source software are a lot safer for the individual attacker. I support 100% closed-source development and extended release schedules. Open source & rapid development / release scares the daylights out of me. Too many people can see it, too many people can make changes, and it's happening way too fast.

prophesi 9y ago
Both open-source and closed-source have their problems. Closed Source: - Team behind it could add trackers, backdoors, etc that are difficult to detect. - Attackers could find an exploit that will go unnoticed and unfixed for an indeterminable length of time. Or perhaps use the team's own aforementioned exploits/backdoors. - Can't tell if their app is well-tested and well-written, which means it could be a buggy hot mess from the get-go. Which is the most common reason for hiding source from my anecdotal experience. Open Source: - Much easier for anyone to find a bug, including attackers. You'd hope the maintainers/community will find the bug before them, or at least take less time to fix it than if it were closed-source. - Attackers could add their own exploit that will go unnoticed or unfixed for an indeterminable length of time. I think the conclusion to draw from is: Closed Source = less likely for attackers to find bugs, but more likely for bugs to persist. Can only trust in the company's reputation for code quality. Open Source = more likely for attackers to find bugs, but less likely for bugs to persist. Don't need to trust the company's reputation for code quality.
- xerophyte12932 9y ago

BartSaM 9y ago

Closed source sometimes is better than an open source. With open source code, certain agencies can find exploits and use them to track every move you make, months and years before anyone spotted it. With closed source, you have more chance, at least if you believe in humans, that you will stay anonymous. But to be honest, as soon as such company would go public, get major funding from one of the big companies, or get a new, famous CEO - run away.

FridgeSeal 9y ago
> Closed source sometimes is better than an open source. With open source code, certain agencies can find exploits and use them to track every move you make, months and years before anyone spotted it Haha yeah, as opposed to close source, where no one spots it. Or if they do, you have no idea whether it ever gets fixed or not. Not exactly a better alternative.

Ndymium 9y ago

Vivaldi is readable source, though, as the non-chromium parts are made with HTML and JS that are not obfuscated AFAIK. So it's the same trust factor as open source, albeit with probably somewhat less people looking at the source (plenty do tinker with the code, though, to modify their browser).

Sylos 9y ago
It's mostly the same trust factor as Chromium or in general Apache-, MIT- and similarly licensed open-source software has. It is not the same trust factor as Firefox or in general GPL-, MPL- and similarly licensed open-source software has. The latter, so-called copyleft-licenses, actively prevent someone from adding closed-source code to the open-source code-base or to relicense the entire code under a less strict license. Vivaldi's license does not. They could start shipping non-readable code at any point.

knowThySelfx 9y ago

What about Brave?