8 ms·

damn... Brave is just crushing it. I've been using brave search and its amazing for development... the code samples are front and center

by jppope 5y ago

nicce 5y ago
It is just very hard to trust them... they get caught on very hostile things again and again, when they promise that won't happen again. In the end, they are yet another ad based company.
- dkdk8283 5y ago
  Is Mozilla any better? They’ve lost their way and Google remains their largest source of income.
  - nicce 5y ago
    It is true that they get most of their income by setting Google as default search engine. However, they do not promote or support Google's way to do many things, and all of the evidence is pointing that privacy is everything they have in their brand, and they haven't done user hostile things in the past. They have attempted many kinds of new business models. VPN partnership with Mullavad is really promising one, and maybe they finally get new source for income.
    - jqpabc123 5y ago
      all of the evidence is pointing that privacy is everything they have in their brand That probably explains why their brand is declining. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/03/study-ranks-edges-default-privacy-settings-the-lowest-of-all-major-browsers/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/03/study...
    - rvz 5y ago
      So Mozilla isn't any better then. As long as they have Google's money and have them as the default search engine, their stance on privacy is a joke. In fact, they knew about the joke about 'Mozilla living without Google' since 2007 [0] and 14 years later they once begged to Google to renew that contract and now they continue to bite the same hand that kept them alive. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20120105090543/https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9044160/Mozilla_can_live_without_Google_s_money_Baker_says_ https://web.archive.org/web/20120105090543/https://www.compu...
      - nicce 5y ago
        How many shady or user-hostile things has Mozilla done? Receiving money is not making someone automatically bad. You become bad when you do other things than originally agreed for receiving the money, in benefit of money provider. > As long as they have Google's money and have them as the default search engine, their stance on privacy is a joke. Also to my knowledge, you can change search engine anytime you want.
        jonathansampson 5y ago
        Mozilla has been in hot-water in the past for silently installing extensions and more. But to your last comment (i.e. users can change their search engine whenever they want), consider the 'tyranny of the default'. Most users will not make changes to their browser out of the box. Most users frankly do not know how, or even know that they ought to in some areas. When you install Firefox, and fire up that first session, your keystrokes in the address bar are sent to Google. There is no warning, or permission prompt. The same would happen if you accidentally pasted-in your social security number, or some other sensitive information—it gets sent right off to Google. It was this type of behavior, in part, that led independent researchers at Trinity College to grade Firefox lower than Brave in terms of out-of-the-box privacy: https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf. In fact, Brave was found to be in its own class as the most private browser tested.
  - blitzar 5y ago
    Hard to imply they are a paid shill of google when they are the only thing stopping us from Chrome browser 100% adoption rate.
    - BrendanEich 5y ago
      No, Apple stands in the way. If you mean browser engine, still true: WebKit was forked as Blink on 4/3/2013 and diverged on both sides since. The time for a new engine may come, and I saw a clean room one go by on HN the other day. It's very hard to get to webcompat. Gecko loses compatibility as Firefox loses market share. For now, the more important fight is a level up: tracker blocking, users dealt into the economics, intermediaries and big tech dealt out.
      - blitzar 5y ago
        Point taken ... safari numbers are a little inflated by the iOS share, however, they are devices and that is where the web is used.
  - tomComb 5y ago
    Yes, Mozilla is way better - the polar opposite really. Judge them on their record. Your not liking a company that is giving them money and Brave's actual record of being endlessly slimy and untrustworthy. Mozilla undermines Google at every chance so clearly the only result of Google money is what you see in Firefox and that is easily changable.
    - BrendanEich 5y ago
      I'm glad you like Firefox, I spent a lot of years on it, and on Mozilla, Gecko, SpiderMonkey, and the XUL platform before it. But Mozilla is currently beholden to Google and this has left them with year over year market share losses against Chrome. I don't see how they've "undermined" Google. If they switch to Bing as scooped by TechCrunch, they may start.
      - tomComb 5y ago
        Yes, I'm quite familiar with your record - you sell it endlessly. Your getting in early at Mozilla doesn't make up for the damage you've done to the web with Brave.
        BrendanEich 5y ago
        "damage"? Be serious. Brave even at 40M users has not done enough to the Web to merit such fake-drama langauge from you. What's your issue?
        DonHopkins 5y ago
        Since you claim to be so honest and open and brave, then please finally and truthfully answer my questions about all the damage you intentionally inflicted on same sex couples in California, by donating your money to the Proposition 8 campaign, who used your money to produce hateful anti-gay propaganda full of outright lies and "fake drama language", like this "Gathering Storm" ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AzLrn5JVIo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AzLrn5JVIo Why did you successfully try to destroy other people's marriages by donating your money to support Proposition 8? Please explain why you believe same sex couples shouldn't have the same human rights to marry the person they love that you presumably enjoy? Was your own marriage undermined as badly as you intentionally undermined many other people's marriages, after the Supreme Court declared same sex marriage legal?
- jppope 5y ago
  sure... but lets remove the whole trust/ ad thing... Brave is a faster version of chrome, and Brave search gives me the code sample I'm searching for first thing in the sidebar...both are major improvements in my life. It's a better product.
  - nicce 5y ago
    > Brave is a faster version of chrome This line alone makes Brace insecure. It relies on the upstream project. Whenever the upstream project gets a security patch, it will be exploited on the downstream and there is X time for the update, unless you have the userbase of Edge or something. But everybody has opinions to prioritize and we can discuss about them forever.
    - BrendanEich 5y ago
      We update within a day of Chrome on all channels. This is a piece of work, but much less than creating our own engine (which would have its own security bug habitat and early bugs to shake out, until maintenance using bounties and fuzzing). https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Deviations-from-Chromium-(features-we-disable-or-remove) https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Deviations-from-...
  - tomComb 5y ago
    > but lets remove the whole trust/ ad thing. Huh? Trust is what it all comes down to! You are trusting them with your data and access to your devices. Brave is the last browser company I would trust (based on their record) and to me that it the key.
- jonathansampson 5y ago
  > "they get caught on very hostile things again and again" This is not the case. The most common claims are "Brave accepted donations for others", "Brave replaces ads across the Web", "Brave injected/modified referral links"—each of these claims are unequivocally false. You are right that Brave is an "ad based company," however. But that needs to be explained a bit, since Brave is unlike any other ad-based company you've likely encountered on the Web. When people think of "ad-based company," they often picture something like Google. A company that has its hands in most of what you do on the Web, existing as a third-party resource in most of your traffic. But compare Brave with Google for a moment. Brave's ad-model is consent based, while Google's is not. Brave's model follows the user's configuration for determining how often/whether ads should be shown, while Google does not. Brave's model pays the user 70% of the associated revenue, while Google does not. Brave collects [no user data], while Google does the opposite. The Brave model is built on consent, equity, and privacy. Google's model is the opposite, in every regard.
  - nicce 5y ago
    > This is not the case. The most common claims are "Brave accepted donations for others", "Brave replaces ads across the Web", "Brave injected/modified referral links"—each of these claims are unequivocally false. How so? For example the case "Brave injected/modified referral links" https://github.com/brave/brave-core/blob/master/components/omnibox/browser/suggested_sites_provider_data.cc#L14 https://github.com/brave/brave-core/blob/master/components/o... The "problem" of open-source is, that you can see what is happening.
    - jonathansampson 5y ago
      No problem here; I'm happy you went straight to the source. You can also find this code at code.brave.com in the future (to save you some clicks). Note that the source to which you linked does not demonstrate Brave "injecting" or "modifying" any referral links. What is shown instead is our affiliate-code offering, which is presented in the UI of the browser itself when the participating user searches particular terms via the ominibox. We wrote about this here, including screenshots of how it appears in-app: https://brave.com/referral-codes-in-suggested-sites/ https://brave.com/referral-codes-in-suggested-sites/
- BrendanEich 5y ago
  Do you want to talk about the very hostile things? We're not perfect (neither is Mozilla, people still roast them for stuff like bundling Pocket without it being uninstallable) but we fix and learn.

damn... Brave is just crushing it. I've been using brave search and its amazing for development... the code samples are front and center

by jppope 5y ago

damn... Brave is just crushing it. I've been using brave search and its amazing for development... the code samples are front and center

nicce 5y ago

It is just very hard to trust them... they get caught on very hostile things again and again, when they promise that won't happen again. In the end, they are yet another ad based company.

dkdk8283 5y ago
Is Mozilla any better? They’ve lost their way and Google remains their largest source of income.
- nicce 5y ago
  It is true that they get most of their income by setting Google as default search engine. However, they do not promote or support Google's way to do many things, and all of the evidence is pointing that privacy is everything they have in their brand, and they haven't done user hostile things in the past. They have attempted many kinds of new business models. VPN partnership with Mullavad is really promising one, and maybe they finally get new source for income.
  - jqpabc123 5y ago
    all of the evidence is pointing that privacy is everything they have in their brand That probably explains why their brand is declining. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/03/study-ranks-edges-default-privacy-settings-the-lowest-of-all-major-browsers/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/03/study...
  - rvz 5y ago
    So Mozilla isn't any better then. As long as they have Google's money and have them as the default search engine, their stance on privacy is a joke. In fact, they knew about the joke about 'Mozilla living without Google' since 2007 [0] and 14 years later they once begged to Google to renew that contract and now they continue to bite the same hand that kept them alive. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20120105090543/https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9044160/Mozilla_can_live_without_Google_s_money_Baker_says_ https://web.archive.org/web/20120105090543/https://www.compu...
    - nicce 5y ago
      How many shady or user-hostile things has Mozilla done? Receiving money is not making someone automatically bad. You become bad when you do other things than originally agreed for receiving the money, in benefit of money provider. > As long as they have Google's money and have them as the default search engine, their stance on privacy is a joke. Also to my knowledge, you can change search engine anytime you want.
      - jonathansampson 5y ago
        Mozilla has been in hot-water in the past for silently installing extensions and more. But to your last comment (i.e. users can change their search engine whenever they want), consider the 'tyranny of the default'. Most users will not make changes to their browser out of the box. Most users frankly do not know how, or even know that they ought to in some areas. When you install Firefox, and fire up that first session, your keystrokes in the address bar are sent to Google. There is no warning, or permission prompt. The same would happen if you accidentally pasted-in your social security number, or some other sensitive information—it gets sent right off to Google. It was this type of behavior, in part, that led independent researchers at Trinity College to grade Firefox lower than Brave in terms of out-of-the-box privacy: https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf. In fact, Brave was found to be in its own class as the most private browser tested.
- blitzar 5y ago
  Hard to imply they are a paid shill of google when they are the only thing stopping us from Chrome browser 100% adoption rate.
  - BrendanEich 5y ago
    No, Apple stands in the way. If you mean browser engine, still true: WebKit was forked as Blink on 4/3/2013 and diverged on both sides since. The time for a new engine may come, and I saw a clean room one go by on HN the other day. It's very hard to get to webcompat. Gecko loses compatibility as Firefox loses market share. For now, the more important fight is a level up: tracker blocking, users dealt into the economics, intermediaries and big tech dealt out.
    - blitzar 5y ago
      Point taken ... safari numbers are a little inflated by the iOS share, however, they are devices and that is where the web is used.
- tomComb 5y ago
  Yes, Mozilla is way better - the polar opposite really. Judge them on their record. Your not liking a company that is giving them money and Brave's actual record of being endlessly slimy and untrustworthy. Mozilla undermines Google at every chance so clearly the only result of Google money is what you see in Firefox and that is easily changable.
  - BrendanEich 5y ago
    I'm glad you like Firefox, I spent a lot of years on it, and on Mozilla, Gecko, SpiderMonkey, and the XUL platform before it. But Mozilla is currently beholden to Google and this has left them with year over year market share losses against Chrome. I don't see how they've "undermined" Google. If they switch to Bing as scooped by TechCrunch, they may start.
    - tomComb 5y ago
      Yes, I'm quite familiar with your record - you sell it endlessly. Your getting in early at Mozilla doesn't make up for the damage you've done to the web with Brave.
      - BrendanEich 5y ago
        "damage"? Be serious. Brave even at 40M users has not done enough to the Web to merit such fake-drama langauge from you. What's your issue?
        DonHopkins 5y ago
        Since you claim to be so honest and open and brave, then please finally and truthfully answer my questions about all the damage you intentionally inflicted on same sex couples in California, by donating your money to the Proposition 8 campaign, who used your money to produce hateful anti-gay propaganda full of outright lies and "fake drama language", like this "Gathering Storm" ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AzLrn5JVIo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AzLrn5JVIo Why did you successfully try to destroy other people's marriages by donating your money to support Proposition 8? Please explain why you believe same sex couples shouldn't have the same human rights to marry the person they love that you presumably enjoy? Was your own marriage undermined as badly as you intentionally undermined many other people's marriages, after the Supreme Court declared same sex marriage legal?
jppope 5y ago
sure... but lets remove the whole trust/ ad thing... Brave is a faster version of chrome, and Brave search gives me the code sample I'm searching for first thing in the sidebar...both are major improvements in my life. It's a better product.
- nicce 5y ago
  > Brave is a faster version of chrome This line alone makes Brace insecure. It relies on the upstream project. Whenever the upstream project gets a security patch, it will be exploited on the downstream and there is X time for the update, unless you have the userbase of Edge or something. But everybody has opinions to prioritize and we can discuss about them forever.
  - BrendanEich 5y ago
    We update within a day of Chrome on all channels. This is a piece of work, but much less than creating our own engine (which would have its own security bug habitat and early bugs to shake out, until maintenance using bounties and fuzzing). https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Deviations-from-Chromium-(features-we-disable-or-remove) https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/wiki/Deviations-from-...
- tomComb 5y ago
  > but lets remove the whole trust/ ad thing. Huh? Trust is what it all comes down to! You are trusting them with your data and access to your devices. Brave is the last browser company I would trust (based on their record) and to me that it the key.
jonathansampson 5y ago
> "they get caught on very hostile things again and again" This is not the case. The most common claims are "Brave accepted donations for others", "Brave replaces ads across the Web", "Brave injected/modified referral links"—each of these claims are unequivocally false. You are right that Brave is an "ad based company," however. But that needs to be explained a bit, since Brave is unlike any other ad-based company you've likely encountered on the Web. When people think of "ad-based company," they often picture something like Google. A company that has its hands in most of what you do on the Web, existing as a third-party resource in most of your traffic. But compare Brave with Google for a moment. Brave's ad-model is consent based, while Google's is not. Brave's model follows the user's configuration for determining how often/whether ads should be shown, while Google does not. Brave's model pays the user 70% of the associated revenue, while Google does not. Brave collects [no user data], while Google does the opposite. The Brave model is built on consent, equity, and privacy. Google's model is the opposite, in every regard.
- nicce 5y ago
  > This is not the case. The most common claims are "Brave accepted donations for others", "Brave replaces ads across the Web", "Brave injected/modified referral links"—each of these claims are unequivocally false. How so? For example the case "Brave injected/modified referral links" https://github.com/brave/brave-core/blob/master/components/omnibox/browser/suggested_sites_provider_data.cc#L14 https://github.com/brave/brave-core/blob/master/components/o... The "problem" of open-source is, that you can see what is happening.
  - jonathansampson 5y ago
    No problem here; I'm happy you went straight to the source. You can also find this code at code.brave.com in the future (to save you some clicks). Note that the source to which you linked does not demonstrate Brave "injecting" or "modifying" any referral links. What is shown instead is our affiliate-code offering, which is presented in the UI of the browser itself when the participating user searches particular terms via the ominibox. We wrote about this here, including screenshots of how it appears in-app: https://brave.com/referral-codes-in-suggested-sites/ https://brave.com/referral-codes-in-suggested-sites/
BrendanEich 5y ago
Do you want to talk about the very hostile things? We're not perfect (neither is Mozilla, people still roast them for stuff like bundling Pocket without it being uninstallable) but we fix and learn.