12 ms·

When I heard about all these shenanigans over at Firefox, I switched to Vivaldi, and I am enjoying the experience so far

tokai 5y ago
Its not free or open software, so using it is a step back.
- taneq 5y ago
  Depends which way you're facing, really.
  - tokai 5y ago
    A step back is always a step back no matter your facing. Try it out yourself. You see, your front and back stay towards your front and back respectively regardless how much you spin and turn. Weird ikr
- kovac 5y ago
  This indeed is true and I truly wish they made Vivaldi open source. However, free and open software is an ideal. Like any ideal, it can be used as a front and abused inna way that defeats its purpose. In its original form, free and open is noble. But since then, corporations have figured out how to monetise it. So, IMHO, we need to be very careful about anything free and open coming from corporations because their core objectives are very much orthogonal to the core objectives of the original free and open software movement. Those execs aren't the hackers who built the gnu/Linux tools in the early days.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    We need to be careful about free and open software and your solution is to use non free and closed source software because they can make money off open source software? This makes no logical sense.
    - kovac 5y ago
      I'm not proposing any solutions. Just stating that a software with source open may not necessarily mean it's free and open in the sense it was originally intended. What one wants to do with it I think depends on one's own values. I use qutebrowser, vivaldi and brave (on mobile) and sometimes console based browsers when I can get away with it. Qutebrowser and Lynx are open source. Vivaldi and I think Brave aren't open source? I'm using them because I read about their team, their business model, their past and hung out in their forums and decided that I'd support them. Doesn't mean anyone else have to. And there's nothing wrong with making money off opensource software and that's how it was intended in the first place. Original open source software authors didn't mean that the software has to be free of charge. For me, I don't want to support an organisation that sacks the researchers of their core product but the execs pay themselves millions of dollars. Most of those dollars come from Google. I'm sorry that that makes no logical sense to you.
- ameminator 5y ago
  Well, I have serious issues with most of the major open-source browsers. I liked Opera when it was around, I heard good things about Vivaldi and I'm willing to trust them more than Firefox and Chrome at this point. I wish it wasn't this way and I would have preferred open source or even paying hard cash for a good browser experience, but I will take a good browser experience from a source that is at least transparent about their funding and is not Google or funded by Google.

tokai 5y ago

Its not free or open software, so using it is a step back.

taneq 5y ago
Depends which way you're facing, really.
- tokai 5y ago
  A step back is always a step back no matter your facing. Try it out yourself. You see, your front and back stay towards your front and back respectively regardless how much you spin and turn. Weird ikr
kovac 5y ago
This indeed is true and I truly wish they made Vivaldi open source. However, free and open software is an ideal. Like any ideal, it can be used as a front and abused inna way that defeats its purpose. In its original form, free and open is noble. But since then, corporations have figured out how to monetise it. So, IMHO, we need to be very careful about anything free and open coming from corporations because their core objectives are very much orthogonal to the core objectives of the original free and open software movement. Those execs aren't the hackers who built the gnu/Linux tools in the early days.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  We need to be careful about free and open software and your solution is to use non free and closed source software because they can make money off open source software? This makes no logical sense.
  - kovac 5y ago
    I'm not proposing any solutions. Just stating that a software with source open may not necessarily mean it's free and open in the sense it was originally intended. What one wants to do with it I think depends on one's own values. I use qutebrowser, vivaldi and brave (on mobile) and sometimes console based browsers when I can get away with it. Qutebrowser and Lynx are open source. Vivaldi and I think Brave aren't open source? I'm using them because I read about their team, their business model, their past and hung out in their forums and decided that I'd support them. Doesn't mean anyone else have to. And there's nothing wrong with making money off opensource software and that's how it was intended in the first place. Original open source software authors didn't mean that the software has to be free of charge. For me, I don't want to support an organisation that sacks the researchers of their core product but the execs pay themselves millions of dollars. Most of those dollars come from Google. I'm sorry that that makes no logical sense to you.
ameminator 5y ago
Well, I have serious issues with most of the major open-source browsers. I liked Opera when it was around, I heard good things about Vivaldi and I'm willing to trust them more than Firefox and Chrome at this point. I wish it wasn't this way and I would have preferred open source or even paying hard cash for a good browser experience, but I will take a good browser experience from a source that is at least transparent about their funding and is not Google or funded by Google.