4 ms·

> I would love to have a browser that is both built on a Chromium core, AND built for privacy by a trustworthy open-source company. what about Brave?

by jtxx 6y ago

StevePerkins 6y ago
I tried them for a little while. Unfortunately, Brave's sync service just flat-out doesn't work. To the point where they have it disabled by default, and you have to crack open advanced settings to see if it will actually work reliably for you (SPOILER ALERT: It won't). I think they were too focused on making it "blockchain-based" and "crypto-trendy", and just can't build something sensible that works. THIS is the value-add that browser vendors can bring to the table going forward. Chromium the kernel has won. But at the user-feature level: 1. Google and Microsoft's Chromium-based browsers spy on you. 2. Opera's Chromium-based browser has Chinese ownership, and probably spies on you. 3. Brave is buggy and flaky with all of the user features that they've built on top of their Chromium-based browser. 4. Vivalid's Chromium-based browser is pretty awesome and solid, and probably doesn't spy on you. But it's closed-source. 5. Firefox is solid, and has good no-spying values. But their browser is not Chromium-based, and it's dying because the Internet is simply moving on away from it. With this list, Vivaldi is currently the "least-bad" option from my POV. But I would love to go back to Firefox if they would get real with the times.
- jtxx 6y ago
  yeah I’m not a fan of brave either. wish they kept the crypto stuff separate
  - toastal 6y ago
    I think they should have done a better job explaining the purpose without saying the C-word (cryptocurrency) at it's been tainted to scam/fad/etc. The idea of BAT is really nice in theory, but it got pulled into the crypto scene and specualtion a bit too hard and should have been more of an implementation detail.
- outsomnia 6y ago
  > and it's dying because the Internet is simply moving on away from it. > love to go back to Firefox if they would get real with the times Ffox is super up to date with latest and next-gen web technologies... what do you even mean by "get with the times"?
  - perryizgr8 6y ago
    When will I be able to zoom and flick back and forward with the TouchPad? Firefox is desperately behind, at least in usability.
    - jlokier 6y ago
      Total side point, but using FF on a Mac flicking back and forward with the touchpad works for me. I've been using it so long I can barely remember a time when it didn't work.
      - perryizgr8 6y ago
        I know, that's what makes it so infuriating that it doesn't work on Windows. Chrome has supported it for years now.
- blub 6y ago
  Safari doesn't spy on you and is a pretty good browser. There's no way that a closed source browser owned by a Chinese company is least bad. That's easily the least trustworthy option.
  - worble 6y ago
    Great, I'll switch to them as soon as they release a Linux and Android version.
  - perryizgr8 6y ago
    Safari is restricted to a range of hardware I'll never buy, so it might as well not exist for me.
- StevePerkins 6y ago
  > @blub: "There's no way that a closed source browser owned by a Chinese company is least bad" You're speed-reading my comment, and getting it wrong. Vivaldi is NOT Chinese-owned. It is a group of European former-Opera developers, who were unhappy about the Chinese acquisition of Opera. > @outsomnia: "Ffox is super up to date with latest and next-gen web technologies... what do you even mean by "get with the times"?" A similar argument pops up on Java developer forums, in discussions about the old "Java EE" specifications versus Spring Boot. The devs who have hitched their career wagons to Java EE just cannot process the reality that it died 5-10 years ago. "But it's a specification! A standard!" "But Spring implements a lot of those standards! And the other bits are all proprietary API's, that don't have any alternative non-Spring implementations!" It doesn't matter. The spec is not the standard anymore. For the vast majority of Java shops, Spring has become the standard. Like it or not, that's the reality. This analogy is even more extreme when it comes to browser engines. More and more of the web targets Chromium, and is glitchy or non-functional with Gecko. 99% of people could care less which specs Gecko has implemented, or how well they implemented the spec. CHROMIUM IS THE SPEC.
  - acheron 6y ago
    You in 2005: "The web targets IE6! Firefox should acknowledge reality!"
    - StevePerkins 6y ago
      In 2005, Mozilla was more innovative than Microsoft. And more dedicated to implementing specifications that Microsoft was ignoring. Today, the argument for Mozilla is that it's "almost as good" as other browsers. That it "doesn't have as many compatibility problems as you might have heard!", etc. And they're not ahead of Google at implementing standards. They lag slightly behind. https://caniuse.com/#compare=firefox+81,chrome+87 https://caniuse.com/#compare=firefox+81,chrome+87 If the Chromium team starts resting on its laurels like the IE team did in the early-2000's, then I hope they'll meet the same fate. But right now these situations are not remotely comparable.

> I would love to have a browser that is both built on a Chromium core, AND built for privacy by a trustworthy open-source company. what about Brave?

by jtxx 6y ago

> I would love to have a browser that is both built on a Chromium core, AND built for privacy by a trustworthy open-source company. what about Brave?

StevePerkins 6y ago

I tried them for a little while. Unfortunately, Brave's sync service just flat-out doesn't work. To the point where they have it disabled by default, and you have to crack open advanced settings to see if it will actually work reliably for you (SPOILER ALERT: It won't). I think they were too focused on making it "blockchain-based" and "crypto-trendy", and just can't build something sensible that works. THIS is the value-add that browser vendors can bring to the table going forward. Chromium the kernel has won. But at the user-feature level: 1. Google and Microsoft's Chromium-based browsers spy on you. 2. Opera's Chromium-based browser has Chinese ownership, and probably spies on you. 3. Brave is buggy and flaky with all of the user features that they've built on top of their Chromium-based browser. 4. Vivalid's Chromium-based browser is pretty awesome and solid, and probably doesn't spy on you. But it's closed-source. 5. Firefox is solid, and has good no-spying values. But their browser is not Chromium-based, and it's dying because the Internet is simply moving on away from it. With this list, Vivaldi is currently the "least-bad" option from my POV. But I would love to go back to Firefox if they would get real with the times.

jtxx 6y ago
yeah I’m not a fan of brave either. wish they kept the crypto stuff separate
- toastal 6y ago
  I think they should have done a better job explaining the purpose without saying the C-word (cryptocurrency) at it's been tainted to scam/fad/etc. The idea of BAT is really nice in theory, but it got pulled into the crypto scene and specualtion a bit too hard and should have been more of an implementation detail.
outsomnia 6y ago
> and it's dying because the Internet is simply moving on away from it. > love to go back to Firefox if they would get real with the times Ffox is super up to date with latest and next-gen web technologies... what do you even mean by "get with the times"?
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  When will I be able to zoom and flick back and forward with the TouchPad? Firefox is desperately behind, at least in usability.
  - jlokier 6y ago
    Total side point, but using FF on a Mac flicking back and forward with the touchpad works for me. I've been using it so long I can barely remember a time when it didn't work.
    - perryizgr8 6y ago
      I know, that's what makes it so infuriating that it doesn't work on Windows. Chrome has supported it for years now.
blub 6y ago
Safari doesn't spy on you and is a pretty good browser. There's no way that a closed source browser owned by a Chinese company is least bad. That's easily the least trustworthy option.
- worble 6y ago
  Great, I'll switch to them as soon as they release a Linux and Android version.
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  Safari is restricted to a range of hardware I'll never buy, so it might as well not exist for me.
StevePerkins 6y ago
> @blub: "There's no way that a closed source browser owned by a Chinese company is least bad" You're speed-reading my comment, and getting it wrong. Vivaldi is NOT Chinese-owned. It is a group of European former-Opera developers, who were unhappy about the Chinese acquisition of Opera. > @outsomnia: "Ffox is super up to date with latest and next-gen web technologies... what do you even mean by "get with the times"?" A similar argument pops up on Java developer forums, in discussions about the old "Java EE" specifications versus Spring Boot. The devs who have hitched their career wagons to Java EE just cannot process the reality that it died 5-10 years ago. "But it's a specification! A standard!" "But Spring implements a lot of those standards! And the other bits are all proprietary API's, that don't have any alternative non-Spring implementations!" It doesn't matter. The spec is not the standard anymore. For the vast majority of Java shops, Spring has become the standard. Like it or not, that's the reality. This analogy is even more extreme when it comes to browser engines. More and more of the web targets Chromium, and is glitchy or non-functional with Gecko. 99% of people could care less which specs Gecko has implemented, or how well they implemented the spec. CHROMIUM IS THE SPEC.
- acheron 6y ago
  You in 2005: "The web targets IE6! Firefox should acknowledge reality!"
  - StevePerkins 6y ago
    In 2005, Mozilla was more innovative than Microsoft. And more dedicated to implementing specifications that Microsoft was ignoring. Today, the argument for Mozilla is that it's "almost as good" as other browsers. That it "doesn't have as many compatibility problems as you might have heard!", etc. And they're not ahead of Google at implementing standards. They lag slightly behind. https://caniuse.com/#compare=firefox+81,chrome+87 https://caniuse.com/#compare=firefox+81,chrome+87 If the Chromium team starts resting on its laurels like the IE team did in the early-2000's, then I hope they'll meet the same fate. But right now these situations are not remotely comparable.