6 ms·

Seems an automatic update has led to a downgrade in functionality (newly on-by-default ads), and doesn't seem like a win for users. Is there a truly open sourc

Seems an automatic update has led to a downgrade in functionality (newly on-by-default ads), and doesn't seem like a win for users. Is there a truly open source browser, meaning the project collaborates with the community, and is driven by / accepts pull request contributions? A browser developed completely in the open without a corporation whose primary income is derived from said browser?

ewzimm 5y ago
Falkon fits those criteria. https://invent.kde.org/network/falkon https://invent.kde.org/network/falkon
- cropcirclbureau 5y ago
  Falkon uses QtWebEngine which uses Chromium under the hood if I"m reading this right. I believe this disqualifies it from what the author's looking for or is there more to it than that?
  - ewzimm 5y ago
    QtWebEngine uses code from the Chromium project but doesn’t just copy it. https://wiki.qt.io/QtWebEngine https://wiki.qt.io/QtWebEngine The browser is developed in the open, accepts community contributions, and doesn’t have any potential financial conflicts that could work against users. It could benefit a lot from more contributions, especially to the Windows and Mac versions, and there are no mobile versions yet. It’s a very capable browser as it is, but if more people joined the project, it could be the best. Would it be necessary to remove any Chromium code to stay fully open? I wouldn’t say so, but some might disagree.
- mickotron 5y ago
  Updates are few and very far between.
thristian 5y ago
Chrome is advertising based and is not very interested in external contributions, so we'll ignore that. Firefox is developed completely in the open and accepts external contributions, but it's deliberately focussed on end-users, not contributors. WebKit is not a browser, but you can build a browser on top of it, and many people have. I don't think Apple is very interested in individual contributions, but I believe that (for example) the GTK+ port is part of the official source tree and that's not Apple code. Of course, it'd be very difficult to change anything about the core code in a way that Apple didn't like. Then you've got the True Open Source web browsers - things like NetSurf, Dillo, elinks, w3m, lynx. Completely open-source, open to contributions, and generally only work on static documentation pages, not everyday browsing. That seems to be as good as it gets without the financial backing of a multinational corporation.
- Macha 5y ago
  > Firefox is developed completely in the open and accepts external contributions This is overstating the reality. For much of these controversial changes, supporting documentation in Bugzilla links to sources like Google docs, JIRA and Figma, which are private to Mozilla employees. Similarly it was discussed that much of the development discussion moved from Mozilla IRC (now Matrix) to the private Slack instance.

ewzimm 5y ago

Falkon fits those criteria. https://invent.kde.org/network/falkon https://invent.kde.org/network/falkon

cropcirclbureau 5y ago
Falkon uses QtWebEngine which uses Chromium under the hood if I"m reading this right. I believe this disqualifies it from what the author's looking for or is there more to it than that?
- ewzimm 5y ago
  QtWebEngine uses code from the Chromium project but doesn’t just copy it. https://wiki.qt.io/QtWebEngine https://wiki.qt.io/QtWebEngine The browser is developed in the open, accepts community contributions, and doesn’t have any potential financial conflicts that could work against users. It could benefit a lot from more contributions, especially to the Windows and Mac versions, and there are no mobile versions yet. It’s a very capable browser as it is, but if more people joined the project, it could be the best. Would it be necessary to remove any Chromium code to stay fully open? I wouldn’t say so, but some might disagree.
mickotron 5y ago
Updates are few and very far between.

thristian 5y ago

Chrome is advertising based and is not very interested in external contributions, so we'll ignore that. Firefox is developed completely in the open and accepts external contributions, but it's deliberately focussed on end-users, not contributors. WebKit is not a browser, but you can build a browser on top of it, and many people have. I don't think Apple is very interested in individual contributions, but I believe that (for example) the GTK+ port is part of the official source tree and that's not Apple code. Of course, it'd be very difficult to change anything about the core code in a way that Apple didn't like. Then you've got the True Open Source web browsers - things like NetSurf, Dillo, elinks, w3m, lynx. Completely open-source, open to contributions, and generally only work on static documentation pages, not everyday browsing. That seems to be as good as it gets without the financial backing of a multinational corporation.

Macha 5y ago
> Firefox is developed completely in the open and accepts external contributions This is overstating the reality. For much of these controversial changes, supporting documentation in Bugzilla links to sources like Google docs, JIRA and Figma, which are private to Mozilla employees. Similarly it was discussed that much of the development discussion moved from Mozilla IRC (now Matrix) to the private Slack instance.