4 ms·

I've been using Chrome for such a long time now (since like a year after it launched), out of convenience and because it used to be fast (and more secure). It's

by tpmx 5y ago

I've been using Chrome for such a long time now (since like a year after it launched), out of convenience and because it used to be fast (and more secure). It's definitely time to switch. I think my main alternatives are Brave, Vivaldi and Firefox.

pkulak 5y ago
Please Firefox. The first two are just Chrome wrappers.
- tpmx 5y ago
  Well I like both Brendan and Jon, and I actively dislike Baker's leadership of Mozilla. However, Mozilla seems to have the highest investment level into the their desktop browser. I'll test Brave first.
- anewguy9000 5y ago
  You realize Firefox only exists because it serves Google's interests right? And while Brave might be based on Chromium, it is distinct; in addition to not crippling nativewebrequest as chrome will, it's native adblocker is compatible with the same lists as ublock origin. So I would go with Brave :)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - celsoazevedo 5y ago
    What will Brave, Vivaldi, etc, do when Google makes some change that breaks the current APIs? Do they have the resources and are willing to continue to support them?
    - seph-reed 5y ago
      FWIW, Brave does.
      - roca 5y ago
        Brave's long-term problem is that Google can set the cost of Brave's ongoing maintenance to whatever they want. In the 90s Microsoft called this "keeping the competition on a treadmill".
  - pkulak 5y ago
    If Google is not able to control ad-blocking because all the Chromium clones refuse to play ball, what do you think they will do? I have no idea. Maybe just close Chromium entirely, and force all the clones to shut down since there's no way they have the engineering resources to keep up with Google. EDIT: Except for MSFT... that would be interesting for sure.
    - roca 5y ago
      Microsoft already switched to Chromium because they decided not to devote engineering resources to keep up with Google.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    > You realize Firefox only exists because it serves Google's interests right? Ironically, though, the larger Firefox's market share, the more Google will pay to be the default search engine in Firefox. Yes, it's perverse and a little gross that we depend on Google to such a large degree to keep Mozilla and Firefox funded, but having more users increases Mozilla's leverage over Google. Anyway, your point isn't really relevant. Unless you believe Google is dictating nefarious things to Mozilla and has subverted Firefox (difficult since Firefox is open source, but not impossible), you should still be using Firefox. If you care about not continuing to give a giant, monopolistic advertising company control over the web, anyway.
    - Eelongate 5y ago
      > Ironically, though, the larger Firefox's market share, the more Google will pay to be the default search engine in Firefox. The smaller Firefox's market share, the more Mitchell Baker gets paid.

by tpmx 5y ago

pkulak 5y ago

Please Firefox. The first two are just Chrome wrappers.

tpmx 5y ago
Well I like both Brendan and Jon, and I actively dislike Baker's leadership of Mozilla. However, Mozilla seems to have the highest investment level into the their desktop browser. I'll test Brave first.
anewguy9000 5y ago
You realize Firefox only exists because it serves Google's interests right? And while Brave might be based on Chromium, it is distinct; in addition to not crippling nativewebrequest as chrome will, it's native adblocker is compatible with the same lists as ublock origin. So I would go with Brave :)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- celsoazevedo 5y ago
  What will Brave, Vivaldi, etc, do when Google makes some change that breaks the current APIs? Do they have the resources and are willing to continue to support them?
  - seph-reed 5y ago
    FWIW, Brave does.
    - roca 5y ago
      Brave's long-term problem is that Google can set the cost of Brave's ongoing maintenance to whatever they want. In the 90s Microsoft called this "keeping the competition on a treadmill".
- pkulak 5y ago
  If Google is not able to control ad-blocking because all the Chromium clones refuse to play ball, what do you think they will do? I have no idea. Maybe just close Chromium entirely, and force all the clones to shut down since there's no way they have the engineering resources to keep up with Google. EDIT: Except for MSFT... that would be interesting for sure.
  - roca 5y ago
    Microsoft already switched to Chromium because they decided not to devote engineering resources to keep up with Google.
- kelnos 5y ago
  > You realize Firefox only exists because it serves Google's interests right? Ironically, though, the larger Firefox's market share, the more Google will pay to be the default search engine in Firefox. Yes, it's perverse and a little gross that we depend on Google to such a large degree to keep Mozilla and Firefox funded, but having more users increases Mozilla's leverage over Google. Anyway, your point isn't really relevant. Unless you believe Google is dictating nefarious things to Mozilla and has subverted Firefox (difficult since Firefox is open source, but not impossible), you should still be using Firefox. If you care about not continuing to give a giant, monopolistic advertising company control over the web, anyway.
  - Eelongate 5y ago
    > Ironically, though, the larger Firefox's market share, the more Google will pay to be the default search engine in Firefox. The smaller Firefox's market share, the more Mitchell Baker gets paid.