12 ms·

My preference for a well supported Chromium-based browser that's not Chrome would be to use one of the "Blink" based browsers: https://vivaldi.com https://viva

by mythz 8y ago

My preference for a well supported Chromium-based browser that's not Chrome would be to use one of the "Blink" based browsers: https://vivaldi.com https://vivaldi.com https://brave.com https://brave.com https://www.opera.com https://www.opera.com 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. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dn03GeXWkAEXRP3.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dn03GeXWkAEXRP3.jpg 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.

godzillabrennus 8y ago
Brave seems to be focusing on a monetization model that prevents third parties from tracking its users. Seems like a win-win. I’m okay with them hijacking ads if that allows them to succeed and thrive.
- projectramo 8y ago
  Thanks for the tips. I hadn't heard of Vivaldi or Brave.
- mythz 8y ago
  I prefer each website be in control over their own monetization model and not dictated by the whims of a browser vendor without their consent.
  - Sophistifunk 8y ago
    That's what we have now. It hasn't exactly been working out for the users.
    - mythz 8y ago
      In a lot of places Users who don't want ads can subscribe to access ad free content. If that was a superior monetization strategy most websites would adopt it.
      - lappa 8y ago
        Or get an ad blocker or use the browser being discussed. Regardless of your desire for websites to be able to serve ads, the users are mostly in control of whether they want to see the ads.
  - drb91 8y ago
    If you’re monetizing with ads, you’ve already lost control of your revenue.
    - mythz 8y ago
      Whatever monetization strategy Websites choose to fund their content is up to them. If ads are the best way to support free content then that should be their choice.
      - drb91 8y ago
        Sure. And it’s my choice to block them. Brave actually offers a way to pay for content, if I understand it correctly.
        mythz 8y ago
        Sure, you can technically starve them of micro ad revenue if you want, but if you're not going to abide by Content creators implicit contract of having their content served with supporting ads then IMO it's best for all involved that you either subscribe for ad-free content directly from them or just stop consuming their content altogether. There are humans on the other side producing that content, they have as much right for being compensated for their efforts as we do.
        TangoTrotFox 8y ago
        That's more like wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Ad driven "free" material is chosen because it was (and mostly still is) seen to be more profitable than subscription based models. If it's not then the onus of change is not on the consumer to make ads more profitable, but on the producer to find what is. 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.
lawl 8y ago
> I'm not a fan of Brave's hijacking of ad spaces so my preference is currently vivaldi 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.
- mythz 8y ago
  It blocks ads by default and from all I've read replaces it with their own against publishers wishes: https://www.businessinsider.com/newspaper-publishers-send-cease-and-desist-to-brave-browser-2016-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/newspaper-publishers-send-ce... https://www.wired.com/2016/04/brave-software-publishers-respond/ https://www.wired.com/2016/04/brave-software-publishers-resp... Where is the opt-in from the website who are getting their ads blocked/replaced?
  - lawl 8y ago
    Brave certainly blocks ads by default, I personally don't see a problem with that. Users can't install adblocker addons in browsers, not much different than downloading an adblocking-by-default browser. 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[0]. 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[1]. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/20/blockchain-browser-brave-starts-opt-in-testing-of-on-device-ad-targeting/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/20/blockchain-browser-brave-s... [1] https://www.cnet.com/news/ad-blocking-brave-browser-gets-dow-jones-subsidiary-as-partner/ https://www.cnet.com/news/ad-blocking-brave-browser-gets-dow...
    - _corym 8y ago
      Since it's going to be using chromium as a base then theoretically you could install whatever extensions you want to it right now, but that's still in beta
partiallypro 8y ago
One issue here, is that none of these are good cross platformers for mobile. iOS and Android both force you to use their render engine afiak. That's why Edge uses Webkit on iOS and Blink on Android...yet Edge (proper) uses...the Edge engine. Mobile is so much of the world's web usage now...it's basically impossible to decouple them from their root OSes. Imagine if Windows in the 90s or 00s forced every competitor's browser installed to use Microsoft's render engine.
- knownunown 8y ago
  You're correct with iOS, but Android allows browsers to have their own rendering engine (see: Firefox with Gecko.) Microsoft just didn't want to invest in porting EdgeHTML to Android.
- mythz 8y ago
  Only iOS forces you to use WebKit which is why it's used by Chrome/Edge/Opera. It's not impossible to decouple them, you're prohibited by the license from using an alternative browser engine. Android doesn't have any such restrictions so Firefox on Android are able to use their Gecko engine.
  - partiallypro 8y ago
    Thanks for the correction, either way, I view it as a problem that you can't (easily?) decouple in iOS. Some of these browsers listed have no mobile version, at least not ones fully baked. That alone forces people into the hands of the mobile defaults like Chrome and Safari.
    - mythz 8y ago
      I'm not clear why it matters that it's not available for iOS? All iOS browsers must use WebKit which is what's Chrome's Blink engine is based on and what all browsers mentioned above use. 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?
ReverseCold 8y ago
Note that Vivaldi is closed source. If you're looking for open source only, consider Firefox.
- mythz 8y ago
  Vivaldi is publishing its source at: https://vivaldi.com/source/ https://vivaldi.com/source/ Its CEO announced more details about their source code: https://jon.vivaldi.net/a-few-words-about-open-source-vivaldi/ https://jon.vivaldi.net/a-few-words-about-open-source-vivald...
  - mattl 8y ago
    They’re publishing their Blink changes under the same terms as Blink. Their UI code is source-available proprietary software.
  - hadrien01 8y ago
    > In addition, all of our UI code (included in normal packages) is written in plain, readable text. This means that all parts of Vivaldi are full audit-able and open from that perspective. I.E. not downloadable. That's neither open nor open-source.
- Proven 8y ago
  Haha, I don't think so. Brave, un-googled Chromium, etc there are many less intrusive browsers out there.
- h1d 8y ago
  For projects large like a browser, not sure how having everything open sourced helps users. No one can audit it well enough anyway. Only track record can tell its security and stability.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
mattl 8y ago
I believe Brave is the only one of these released under a free software license.
brownbat 8y ago
Just installed Vivaldi. Wow. Thanks. 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. Feature snapshots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4wyvKMRVeY&list=PL72e6dBabYNVRfpvEUt-WNfV7tZuKDAPB&index=8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4wyvKMRVeY&list=PL72e6dBabY...
- swang 8y ago
  you can do this in chrome though...
  - brownbat 8y ago
    It's true you can do some of these in each browser, but not all of them. Chrome on mobile lets you split screen tabs, but seems to require an extension on Desktop. 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.
- commoner 8y ago
  Firefox also supports multiple tab selection with the Ctrl or Command key. This feature was added in version 62. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1458010 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1458010
  - robdachshund 8y ago
    Firefox installs extensions by itself, gives money to companies that support ANTIFA, and you're lucky if a bunch of malware extensions don't mysteriously install themselves. Vivaldi is the way to go.
astonex 8y ago
Just to add my company's browser too, http://whale.naver.com/ http://whale.naver.com/ Chromium-based, actively developed, and has Android+iOS browsers. You can use chrome extensions with it too.
- h1d 8y ago
  Browser is such a security nightmare, how would one want to trust from a random vendor? What is it's selling point?
  - astonex 8y ago
    We're actually the largest tech company in South Korea, not a completely random vendor. We also own LINE messenger which is probably more known.
    - Tor3 8y ago
      Tried it. It ignores my window manager's decorations and enforces its own, with no apparent way of changing that (unlike e.g. Chromium).
    - piyush_soni 8y ago
      Thanks. You still didn't answer what is its (unique) selling point though. e.g. Why should I use it over this 'ungoogled Chromium' itself, or say Firefox?
      - ilikehurdles 8y ago
        The website has a list of features that differentiate it.
  - hrktb 8y ago
    To back astonex’s point, I never tried their browser but Navernis far from a random company. 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.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
colordrops 8y ago
I'm not a huge fan of the ad hijacking, but I find the proprietary license for Vivaldi more off-putting that the open license that Brave uses.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- pnw_hazor 8y ago
  Brave can also be run just as a blocker
franga2000 8y ago
I tried Vivaldi a while ago and, while I really liked it, it didn't justify not being open-source. I'm not one of the OSS elitists, but the browser, like the OS, is just one of those basic things that I want full control over.
- duiker101 8y ago
  While it's not OSS in the common sense, the source code is available. https://vivaldi.com/source/ https://vivaldi.com/source/
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Has anyone managed to compile that? All I could find was a few people getting errors and no help.
- erikb 8y ago
  I'm a huge fan of FOSS, but do you really think that you have full control over any modern piece of software? I think that underestimates how many people actually work on such a project and how many new updates we're getting on a daily basis. Nobody is more than %-wise controlling that stuff anymore. And this % is based on regular financial(!) investment in developer-hours but not in what software you use. 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.
  - simias 8y ago
    It's not about meticulously reviewing every commit for every project that I use, obviously nobody has time for that. For me the most important part is being able to fork the project if you want to add features or are unhappy with the way the original project is going, you don't merely have to beg the maintainers to add a certain feature, you can do it yourself. And perhaps more importantly I'm not screwed if, for one reason or an other, the original maintainers decide to drop the project. 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.
theNextEpisode 8y ago
Thanks for this, what do you use for password syncing?
Nux 8y ago
Been eyeing Vivaldi for a long time, still waiting for their Android browser.
tyler33 8y ago
Brave by default is not hijacking ads, just block all and you can pay to the webs you visit with a cryptocurrency
rplnt 8y ago
Another one: http://otter-browser.org/ http://otter-browser.org/ Maybe a bit more "punk" (no company, OSS effort).
h1d 8y ago
I always hear about Vivaldi as an alternative but how sustainable is their business? 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.
def_true_false 8y ago
Many features that made Opera great still don't work in Vivaldi - last time I checked, RMB+wheel tab cycling was completely broken. When it works, the UI is slow and laggy. Going from old Opera to Vivaldi feels like switching from Sublime to some Electron garbage.
kodablah 8y ago
One I made: https://cretz.github.io/doogie/ https://cretz.github.io/doogie/. Admittedly a bit behind on Chromium (updated locally for myself, deploying this week) and no macOS support yet.
- kodablah 8y ago
  Update: released with latest Chromium version
jplayer01 8y ago
I really wanted to like Vivaldi but it deals with a lot of tabs far worse than Chrome ever did and Chrome is utterly abysmal with more than 50 tabs (while I am easily pushing 400 tabs on Firefox with good performance behavior).

by mythz 8y ago

godzillabrennus 8y ago

Brave seems to be focusing on a monetization model that prevents third parties from tracking its users. Seems like a win-win. I’m okay with them hijacking ads if that allows them to succeed and thrive.

projectramo 8y ago
Thanks for the tips. I hadn't heard of Vivaldi or Brave.
mythz 8y ago
I prefer each website be in control over their own monetization model and not dictated by the whims of a browser vendor without their consent.
- Sophistifunk 8y ago
  That's what we have now. It hasn't exactly been working out for the users.
  - mythz 8y ago
    In a lot of places Users who don't want ads can subscribe to access ad free content. If that was a superior monetization strategy most websites would adopt it.
    - lappa 8y ago
      Or get an ad blocker or use the browser being discussed. Regardless of your desire for websites to be able to serve ads, the users are mostly in control of whether they want to see the ads.
- drb91 8y ago
  If you’re monetizing with ads, you’ve already lost control of your revenue.
  - mythz 8y ago
    Whatever monetization strategy Websites choose to fund their content is up to them. If ads are the best way to support free content then that should be their choice.
    - drb91 8y ago
      Sure. And it’s my choice to block them. Brave actually offers a way to pay for content, if I understand it correctly.
      - mythz 8y ago
        Sure, you can technically starve them of micro ad revenue if you want, but if you're not going to abide by Content creators implicit contract of having their content served with supporting ads then IMO it's best for all involved that you either subscribe for ad-free content directly from them or just stop consuming their content altogether. There are humans on the other side producing that content, they have as much right for being compensated for their efforts as we do.
        TangoTrotFox 8y ago
        That's more like wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Ad driven "free" material is chosen because it was (and mostly still is) seen to be more profitable than subscription based models. If it's not then the onus of change is not on the consumer to make ads more profitable, but on the producer to find what is. 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.

lawl 8y ago

> I'm not a fan of Brave's hijacking of ad spaces so my preference is currently vivaldi 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.

mythz 8y ago
It blocks ads by default and from all I've read replaces it with their own against publishers wishes: https://www.businessinsider.com/newspaper-publishers-send-cease-and-desist-to-brave-browser-2016-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/newspaper-publishers-send-ce... https://www.wired.com/2016/04/brave-software-publishers-respond/ https://www.wired.com/2016/04/brave-software-publishers-resp... Where is the opt-in from the website who are getting their ads blocked/replaced?
- lawl 8y ago
  Brave certainly blocks ads by default, I personally don't see a problem with that. Users can't install adblocker addons in browsers, not much different than downloading an adblocking-by-default browser. 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[0]. 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[1]. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/20/blockchain-browser-brave-starts-opt-in-testing-of-on-device-ad-targeting/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/06/20/blockchain-browser-brave-s... [1] https://www.cnet.com/news/ad-blocking-brave-browser-gets-dow-jones-subsidiary-as-partner/ https://www.cnet.com/news/ad-blocking-brave-browser-gets-dow...
  - _corym 8y ago
    Since it's going to be using chromium as a base then theoretically you could install whatever extensions you want to it right now, but that's still in beta

partiallypro 8y ago

One issue here, is that none of these are good cross platformers for mobile. iOS and Android both force you to use their render engine afiak. That's why Edge uses Webkit on iOS and Blink on Android...yet Edge (proper) uses...the Edge engine. Mobile is so much of the world's web usage now...it's basically impossible to decouple them from their root OSes. Imagine if Windows in the 90s or 00s forced every competitor's browser installed to use Microsoft's render engine.

knownunown 8y ago
You're correct with iOS, but Android allows browsers to have their own rendering engine (see: Firefox with Gecko.) Microsoft just didn't want to invest in porting EdgeHTML to Android.
mythz 8y ago
Only iOS forces you to use WebKit which is why it's used by Chrome/Edge/Opera. It's not impossible to decouple them, you're prohibited by the license from using an alternative browser engine. Android doesn't have any such restrictions so Firefox on Android are able to use their Gecko engine.
- partiallypro 8y ago
  Thanks for the correction, either way, I view it as a problem that you can't (easily?) decouple in iOS. Some of these browsers listed have no mobile version, at least not ones fully baked. That alone forces people into the hands of the mobile defaults like Chrome and Safari.
  - mythz 8y ago
    I'm not clear why it matters that it's not available for iOS? All iOS browsers must use WebKit which is what's Chrome's Blink engine is based on and what all browsers mentioned above use. 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?

ReverseCold 8y ago

Note that Vivaldi is closed source. If you're looking for open source only, consider Firefox.

mythz 8y ago
Vivaldi is publishing its source at: https://vivaldi.com/source/ https://vivaldi.com/source/ Its CEO announced more details about their source code: https://jon.vivaldi.net/a-few-words-about-open-source-vivaldi/ https://jon.vivaldi.net/a-few-words-about-open-source-vivald...
- mattl 8y ago
  They’re publishing their Blink changes under the same terms as Blink. Their UI code is source-available proprietary software.
- hadrien01 8y ago
  > In addition, all of our UI code (included in normal packages) is written in plain, readable text. This means that all parts of Vivaldi are full audit-able and open from that perspective. I.E. not downloadable. That's neither open nor open-source.
Proven 8y ago
Haha, I don't think so. Brave, un-googled Chromium, etc there are many less intrusive browsers out there.
h1d 8y ago
For projects large like a browser, not sure how having everything open sourced helps users. No one can audit it well enough anyway. Only track record can tell its security and stability.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

mattl 8y ago

I believe Brave is the only one of these released under a free software license.

brownbat 8y ago

Just installed Vivaldi. Wow. Thanks. 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. Feature snapshots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4wyvKMRVeY&list=PL72e6dBabYNVRfpvEUt-WNfV7tZuKDAPB&index=8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4wyvKMRVeY&list=PL72e6dBabY...

swang 8y ago
you can do this in chrome though...
- brownbat 8y ago
  It's true you can do some of these in each browser, but not all of them. Chrome on mobile lets you split screen tabs, but seems to require an extension on Desktop. 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.
commoner 8y ago
Firefox also supports multiple tab selection with the Ctrl or Command key. This feature was added in version 62. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1458010 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1458010
- robdachshund 8y ago
  Firefox installs extensions by itself, gives money to companies that support ANTIFA, and you're lucky if a bunch of malware extensions don't mysteriously install themselves. Vivaldi is the way to go.

astonex 8y ago

Just to add my company's browser too, http://whale.naver.com/ http://whale.naver.com/ Chromium-based, actively developed, and has Android+iOS browsers. You can use chrome extensions with it too.

h1d 8y ago
Browser is such a security nightmare, how would one want to trust from a random vendor? What is it's selling point?
- astonex 8y ago
  We're actually the largest tech company in South Korea, not a completely random vendor. We also own LINE messenger which is probably more known.
  - Tor3 8y ago
    Tried it. It ignores my window manager's decorations and enforces its own, with no apparent way of changing that (unlike e.g. Chromium).
  - piyush_soni 8y ago
    Thanks. You still didn't answer what is its (unique) selling point though. e.g. Why should I use it over this 'ungoogled Chromium' itself, or say Firefox?
    - ilikehurdles 8y ago
      The website has a list of features that differentiate it.
- hrktb 8y ago
  To back astonex’s point, I never tried their browser but Navernis far from a random company. 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.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

colordrops 8y ago

I'm not a huge fan of the ad hijacking, but I find the proprietary license for Vivaldi more off-putting that the open license that Brave uses.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pnw_hazor 8y ago
Brave can also be run just as a blocker

franga2000 8y ago

I tried Vivaldi a while ago and, while I really liked it, it didn't justify not being open-source. I'm not one of the OSS elitists, but the browser, like the OS, is just one of those basic things that I want full control over.

duiker101 8y ago
While it's not OSS in the common sense, the source code is available. https://vivaldi.com/source/ https://vivaldi.com/source/
- icebraining 8y ago
  Has anyone managed to compile that? All I could find was a few people getting errors and no help.
erikb 8y ago
I'm a huge fan of FOSS, but do you really think that you have full control over any modern piece of software? I think that underestimates how many people actually work on such a project and how many new updates we're getting on a daily basis. Nobody is more than %-wise controlling that stuff anymore. And this % is based on regular financial(!) investment in developer-hours but not in what software you use. 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.
- simias 8y ago
  It's not about meticulously reviewing every commit for every project that I use, obviously nobody has time for that. For me the most important part is being able to fork the project if you want to add features or are unhappy with the way the original project is going, you don't merely have to beg the maintainers to add a certain feature, you can do it yourself. And perhaps more importantly I'm not screwed if, for one reason or an other, the original maintainers decide to drop the project. 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.

theNextEpisode 8y ago

Thanks for this, what do you use for password syncing?

Nux 8y ago

Been eyeing Vivaldi for a long time, still waiting for their Android browser.

tyler33 8y ago

Brave by default is not hijacking ads, just block all and you can pay to the webs you visit with a cryptocurrency

rplnt 8y ago

Another one: http://otter-browser.org/ http://otter-browser.org/ Maybe a bit more "punk" (no company, OSS effort).

h1d 8y ago

I always hear about Vivaldi as an alternative but how sustainable is their business? 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.

def_true_false 8y ago

Many features that made Opera great still don't work in Vivaldi - last time I checked, RMB+wheel tab cycling was completely broken. When it works, the UI is slow and laggy. Going from old Opera to Vivaldi feels like switching from Sublime to some Electron garbage.

kodablah 8y ago

One I made: https://cretz.github.io/doogie/ https://cretz.github.io/doogie/. Admittedly a bit behind on Chromium (updated locally for myself, deploying this week) and no macOS support yet.

kodablah 8y ago
Update: released with latest Chromium version

jplayer01 8y ago

I really wanted to like Vivaldi but it deals with a lot of tabs far worse than Chrome ever did and Chrome is utterly abysmal with more than 50 tabs (while I am easily pushing 400 tabs on Firefox with good performance behavior).