4 ms·

I see critics on Protonmail, but Brave is an absolut legit fully open-sourced project. Nothing Sketchy, and no the opt-in Crypto Program is also nothing sketcht

by lfkdev 4y ago

I see critics on Protonmail, but Brave is an absolut legit fully open-sourced project. Nothing Sketchy, and no the opt-in Crypto Program is also nothing sketcht.

Yizahi 4y ago
The sketchy part is being a Chrome clone while pretending to be a "different" browser.
- 988747 4y ago
  To create a web browser you need some kind of rendering engine. And writing rendering engine that correctly handles current HTML, JavaScript, CSS specifications is hard. On top of that you build features like bookmarks, password manager, etc. I do not have a problem with some browser using Chrome rendering engine, if they remove all the sketchy parts, like sending every url that you browse to some central database, or backing up your passwords on Google server. So, in the end, being based on Chrome rendering engine is not a damning quality in itself.
- fzfaa 4y ago
  You guys will eventually have to get over that old "blink is chrome" trope. The world has moved on. It's time that you do.
  - k__ 4y ago
    Yes, as if the rendering engine is the only part of a browser.
    - Yizahi 4y ago
      The main part of the browser is its main developer. In this case it is Google. If Google decides to add QUIC support to the browser it will appear in all of the clones too, because they are not standalone. If Google decides to move to the Manifest V3 then all closes will move to it too. Whatever Google decides to implement deep in the Chrome browser, other will have no choice but to accept.
      - fzfaa 4y ago
        That's false. For example, Brave will continue supporting Manifest V2. https://nitter.net/BrendanEich/status/1134141335881912320 https://nitter.net/BrendanEich/status/1134141335881912320 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/20059#issuecomment-992720832 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/20059#issuecom...
        Yizahi 4y ago
        Yes, if they will keep this promise it will be great. It is a big effort for almost no profit, so I guess then Brave could be counted as a separate browser. It would probably depend on the extension authors too, since they would need to support two different versions, one of which for the Brave only, and another for all Chrome variations including Chrome itself.
  - Yizahi 4y ago
    As soon as will see even a single real fork of the Chrome, I will of course call it a separate browser. Just like I called Safari if you saw above. Safari and Chrome grow from the same source years ago, but Apple decided to make a real own browser, not just tune some settings and add or remove plugins.
    - jlund-molfese 4y ago
      Well, it's the other way around, actually. Safari's WebKit was based on Konqueror's KHTML, and Chrome's Blink was in turn based on WebKit. See here [0], it's pretty interesting [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit#Origins
patall 4y ago
While the opt-in crypto program may not be sketchy per se, all ads that I have ever seen on it where in some way or the other get-rich-quick schemes. And that is imo what most of the criticism is about.

by lfkdev 4y ago

I see critics on Protonmail, but Brave is an absolut legit fully open-sourced project. Nothing Sketchy, and no the opt-in Crypto Program is also nothing sketcht.

Yizahi 4y ago

The sketchy part is being a Chrome clone while pretending to be a "different" browser.

988747 4y ago
To create a web browser you need some kind of rendering engine. And writing rendering engine that correctly handles current HTML, JavaScript, CSS specifications is hard. On top of that you build features like bookmarks, password manager, etc. I do not have a problem with some browser using Chrome rendering engine, if they remove all the sketchy parts, like sending every url that you browse to some central database, or backing up your passwords on Google server. So, in the end, being based on Chrome rendering engine is not a damning quality in itself.
fzfaa 4y ago
You guys will eventually have to get over that old "blink is chrome" trope. The world has moved on. It's time that you do.
- k__ 4y ago
  Yes, as if the rendering engine is the only part of a browser.
  - Yizahi 4y ago
    The main part of the browser is its main developer. In this case it is Google. If Google decides to add QUIC support to the browser it will appear in all of the clones too, because they are not standalone. If Google decides to move to the Manifest V3 then all closes will move to it too. Whatever Google decides to implement deep in the Chrome browser, other will have no choice but to accept.
    - fzfaa 4y ago
      That's false. For example, Brave will continue supporting Manifest V2. https://nitter.net/BrendanEich/status/1134141335881912320 https://nitter.net/BrendanEich/status/1134141335881912320 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/20059#issuecomment-992720832 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/20059#issuecom...
      - Yizahi 4y ago
        Yes, if they will keep this promise it will be great. It is a big effort for almost no profit, so I guess then Brave could be counted as a separate browser. It would probably depend on the extension authors too, since they would need to support two different versions, one of which for the Brave only, and another for all Chrome variations including Chrome itself.
- Yizahi 4y ago
  As soon as will see even a single real fork of the Chrome, I will of course call it a separate browser. Just like I called Safari if you saw above. Safari and Chrome grow from the same source years ago, but Apple decided to make a real own browser, not just tune some settings and add or remove plugins.
  - jlund-molfese 4y ago
    Well, it's the other way around, actually. Safari's WebKit was based on Konqueror's KHTML, and Chrome's Blink was in turn based on WebKit. See here [0], it's pretty interesting [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebKit#Origins

patall 4y ago

While the opt-in crypto program may not be sketchy per se, all ads that I have ever seen on it where in some way or the other get-rich-quick schemes. And that is imo what most of the criticism is about.