4 ms·

It's better than Chrome and FF imho. Lacks the tracking BS from Chrome, and FF has gone downhill.. Any reasons not too?

by sarcasmatwork 6y ago

encryptluks2 6y ago
Brave uses Chromium.
- ravenstine 6y ago
  What's wrong with Chromium? I don't think Google's tracking specifically has anything to do with Chromium. Chromium !== Chrome
  - freedom42 6y ago
    Because the direction Chromium is heading is in large part controlled by Google, more than Firefox. Also Chromium still has Google bits, otherwise ungoogled-chromium won't exist right?
    - ravenstine 6y ago
      I see. I generally agree with that, which is one reason why I'm a Firefox user, but I'm not totally sure I buy it as a reason not to use Brave. It's a fair viewpoint, though. I could see it being a reason for being against Brave if the Google-ness of Chromium is able to make Brave less private.
      - freedom42 6y ago
        I think Google recently took out the syncing capability from Chromium. Things like that. Edit: Also the manifest v3 thingy which made Ublock Origin operation restricted, also I think it prevented CNAME uncloaking. Idk whether Google went ahead with manifest v3 though.
  - encryptluks2 6y ago
    Nothing. I use Chromium. I just prefer it over Brave.
  - asddubs 6y ago
    I think the main problem is that by using it you're still giving google decision-making power over the future of the web
ancarda 6y ago
Why not use a Firefox fork like Waterfox? That fixes a number of the complaints people have with Firefox while not pushing us towards a browser engine monopoly - which you do by using a Chromium based browser. Besides, the Basic Attention Token crap in Brave is kinda shady.
- eingaeKaiy8ujie 6y ago
  What's wrong with Firefox?
  - ancarda 6y ago
    Nothing, so long as you're okay with telemetry, bundled junk like pocket, and the removal of the compact UI (see the thread from yesterday - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26464533 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26464533). Firefox's internals are great -- it's never been faster or as stable, and for that we made real sacrifices like losing XUL extensions but increasingly I don't understand Mozilla's decision making. EDIT: I understand many of the things I'm talking about can be fixed with about:config. I had a list of over 30 flags in my notes and it was becoming untenable to patch all my devices whenever a feature I needed was changed or removed. Whereas with Waterfox, I so far have only one about:config change: dom.security.https_only_mode = true
    - hackerfromthefu 6y ago
      >> I don't understand Mozilla's decision making. Yeah lots of (usually subtle-ish) incongruous actions. Ignore the public messaging and work backwards from what they actually do to understand their real motivations. I've written some other comments with my analysis on it if you're interests you can check my comment history.
- sarcasmatwork 6y ago
  I have not heard about Waterfox, will give it a try. I've only been using Brave for the last ~2months.
- 6y ago

It's better than Chrome and FF imho. Lacks the tracking BS from Chrome, and FF has gone downhill.. Any reasons not too?

encryptluks2 6y ago

Brave uses Chromium.

ravenstine 6y ago
What's wrong with Chromium? I don't think Google's tracking specifically has anything to do with Chromium. Chromium !== Chrome
- freedom42 6y ago
  Because the direction Chromium is heading is in large part controlled by Google, more than Firefox. Also Chromium still has Google bits, otherwise ungoogled-chromium won't exist right?
  - ravenstine 6y ago
    I see. I generally agree with that, which is one reason why I'm a Firefox user, but I'm not totally sure I buy it as a reason not to use Brave. It's a fair viewpoint, though. I could see it being a reason for being against Brave if the Google-ness of Chromium is able to make Brave less private.
    - freedom42 6y ago
      I think Google recently took out the syncing capability from Chromium. Things like that. Edit: Also the manifest v3 thingy which made Ublock Origin operation restricted, also I think it prevented CNAME uncloaking. Idk whether Google went ahead with manifest v3 though.
- encryptluks2 6y ago
  Nothing. I use Chromium. I just prefer it over Brave.
- asddubs 6y ago
  I think the main problem is that by using it you're still giving google decision-making power over the future of the web

ancarda 6y ago

Why not use a Firefox fork like Waterfox? That fixes a number of the complaints people have with Firefox while not pushing us towards a browser engine monopoly - which you do by using a Chromium based browser. Besides, the Basic Attention Token crap in Brave is kinda shady.

eingaeKaiy8ujie 6y ago
What's wrong with Firefox?
- ancarda 6y ago
  Nothing, so long as you're okay with telemetry, bundled junk like pocket, and the removal of the compact UI (see the thread from yesterday - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26464533 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26464533). Firefox's internals are great -- it's never been faster or as stable, and for that we made real sacrifices like losing XUL extensions but increasingly I don't understand Mozilla's decision making. EDIT: I understand many of the things I'm talking about can be fixed with about:config. I had a list of over 30 flags in my notes and it was becoming untenable to patch all my devices whenever a feature I needed was changed or removed. Whereas with Waterfox, I so far have only one about:config change: dom.security.https_only_mode = true
  - hackerfromthefu 6y ago
    >> I don't understand Mozilla's decision making. Yeah lots of (usually subtle-ish) incongruous actions. Ignore the public messaging and work backwards from what they actually do to understand their real motivations. I've written some other comments with my analysis on it if you're interests you can check my comment history.
sarcasmatwork 6y ago
I have not heard about Waterfox, will give it a try. I've only been using Brave for the last ~2months.
6y ago