4 ms·

It's worth noting that Pale Moon, Waterfox, and Ghostery are variably outdated versions of Firefox, and Brave, Opera, Vivaldi, Bromite, and Smooz are just Chrom

It's worth noting that Pale Moon, Waterfox, and Ghostery are variably outdated versions of Firefox, and Brave, Opera, Vivaldi, Bromite, and Smooz are just Chrome.

ibraheemdev 6y ago
Are there any browsers that are not tied to a large for-profit corporation (Google, Apple, MS) other than Firefox?
- Spivak 6y ago
  I mean Firefox is inexorably tied to Google so that doesn't really work either.
  - ibraheemdev 6y ago
    True, but I meant on the technology side of things. Chromium based browsers like Brave have had issues in the past where they pulled in upstream code that, say, connected to Google servers. Firefox is the only browser I know of the doesn't have that problem.
pwdisswordfish0 6y ago
The only viable non-Mozilla alternative to Blink-based browsers are WebKit-based browsers (or the minimal ones with custom engines that are developed to run in the terminal, if you can stomach it).
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  "Mozilla" is a large umbrella which spans several different rendering engines and a whole host of browsers.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
forgotmypw17 6y ago
I think your use of the word "outdated" is incorrect. They are more like "LTS" versions, which maintain a stable user interface while keeping up with security patches and continuously adding improvements and polish.
- Miraste 6y ago
  I'm referring less to active maintenance and more to the tech involved. Pre-57 Firefox, which is what Pale Moon and Waterfox Classic fork, had several design choices which all major browsers, including Firefox, moved away from and are, IMO, inherently insecure (also slow). It used to be a playground for security researchers. I count building shinier versions of 2000's browser tech as outdated.
  - forgotmypw17 6y ago
    I consider the point of view that only using bleeding edge browsers is valid as outdated. I also think that saying "several design choices" but not actually listing them is disingenuous.
    - Miraste 6y ago
      Ha, ultimately it is just semantics. That said, I personally wouldn't trust these browsers for online banking or similar uses. The main choices I'm talking about are no multiprocess sandboxing and keeping XUL addons, although the speed and rendering improvements in Quantum are significant too.
      - forgotmypw17 6y ago
        I don't need to use online banking, I need to view pages with text and images, occasionally JavaScript, and not get owned by some random 0-day or exploit. For this purpose, it can be argued that the lesser-known and slower-developed browsers are in many ways more secure than the whales: They are developed more slowly, with much less code being introduced day-to-day. They are also less targeted, since hardly anyone uses them. For sandboxing, there are many other solutions, which I think are also more secure if they are externalized. As far as XUL, yes, it is certainly more secure to disallow add-ons which can do anything useful, like modify the UI.
doc_gunthrop 6y ago
Bromite is de-Googled Chrome. It's the reason why notifications are not supported; push notifications rely on Firebase Cloud Messaging / Google Cloud Messaging. It's actually less tied to Google services than Firefox.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  Bromite is the only Android browser I've ever seen which has a "View Source" command, which is both incredible and quite sad. Kudos to Bromite team, I am grateful to them every day. Yes, I'm aware that in other browsers I can scroll up to the address bar, tap the address bar, stumble-drag my way to the beginning of the text field, and type "view" (switch to symbols view) dash (switch to letters view) source (switch to symbols view) colon. I've yet to see a single iOS browser which has a View Source command.
  - doc_gunthrop 6y ago
    The older Firefox browser (up to version 68) for Android had the "View Source" feature. Then it got replaced with Fenix, and we all know how that turned out.

It's worth noting that Pale Moon, Waterfox, and Ghostery are variably outdated versions of Firefox, and Brave, Opera, Vivaldi, Bromite, and Smooz are just Chrome.

ibraheemdev 6y ago

Are there any browsers that are not tied to a large for-profit corporation (Google, Apple, MS) other than Firefox?

Spivak 6y ago
I mean Firefox is inexorably tied to Google so that doesn't really work either.
- ibraheemdev 6y ago
  True, but I meant on the technology side of things. Chromium based browsers like Brave have had issues in the past where they pulled in upstream code that, say, connected to Google servers. Firefox is the only browser I know of the doesn't have that problem.

pwdisswordfish0 6y ago

The only viable non-Mozilla alternative to Blink-based browsers are WebKit-based browsers (or the minimal ones with custom engines that are developed to run in the terminal, if you can stomach it).

forgotmypw17 6y ago
"Mozilla" is a large umbrella which spans several different rendering engines and a whole host of browsers.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

forgotmypw17 6y ago

I think your use of the word "outdated" is incorrect. They are more like "LTS" versions, which maintain a stable user interface while keeping up with security patches and continuously adding improvements and polish.

Miraste 6y ago
I'm referring less to active maintenance and more to the tech involved. Pre-57 Firefox, which is what Pale Moon and Waterfox Classic fork, had several design choices which all major browsers, including Firefox, moved away from and are, IMO, inherently insecure (also slow). It used to be a playground for security researchers. I count building shinier versions of 2000's browser tech as outdated.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  I consider the point of view that only using bleeding edge browsers is valid as outdated. I also think that saying "several design choices" but not actually listing them is disingenuous.
  - Miraste 6y ago
    Ha, ultimately it is just semantics. That said, I personally wouldn't trust these browsers for online banking or similar uses. The main choices I'm talking about are no multiprocess sandboxing and keeping XUL addons, although the speed and rendering improvements in Quantum are significant too.
    - forgotmypw17 6y ago
      I don't need to use online banking, I need to view pages with text and images, occasionally JavaScript, and not get owned by some random 0-day or exploit. For this purpose, it can be argued that the lesser-known and slower-developed browsers are in many ways more secure than the whales: They are developed more slowly, with much less code being introduced day-to-day. They are also less targeted, since hardly anyone uses them. For sandboxing, there are many other solutions, which I think are also more secure if they are externalized. As far as XUL, yes, it is certainly more secure to disallow add-ons which can do anything useful, like modify the UI.

doc_gunthrop 6y ago

Bromite is de-Googled Chrome. It's the reason why notifications are not supported; push notifications rely on Firebase Cloud Messaging / Google Cloud Messaging. It's actually less tied to Google services than Firefox.

forgotmypw17 6y ago
Bromite is the only Android browser I've ever seen which has a "View Source" command, which is both incredible and quite sad. Kudos to Bromite team, I am grateful to them every day. Yes, I'm aware that in other browsers I can scroll up to the address bar, tap the address bar, stumble-drag my way to the beginning of the text field, and type "view" (switch to symbols view) dash (switch to letters view) source (switch to symbols view) colon. I've yet to see a single iOS browser which has a View Source command.
- doc_gunthrop 6y ago
  The older Firefox browser (up to version 68) for Android had the "View Source" feature. Then it got replaced with Fenix, and we all know how that turned out.