4 ms·
> Using a browser that monetizes itself in any way seems like a slippery slope to me. I'd rather use Ungoogled Chromium/Bromite or even LibreWolf if it came dow
by ramesh31 4y ago
> Using a browser that monetizes itself in any way seems like a slippery slope to me. I'd rather use Ungoogled Chromium/Bromite or even LibreWolf if it came down to it.
The problem with this approach is that it’s impossible to get a safe binary that isn’t downloaded from “libfree.cxcc.gg” or whatever. The other option being to build from source, which is an absolute nightmare for Chromium.
- smoldesu 4y agoAll of those browsers have signatures available if you question the integrity of your binary. Otherwise this argument isn't any different for the likes of Brave or Chrome even.
- ramesh31 4y ago> All of those browsers have signatures available if you question the integrity of your binary Signatures available from whom? The point being that a web browser is a very special case of software that has to absolutely 100% trustworthy from a reputable commercial entity (that is, someone that can be sued). The only other thing with that level of trust is your operating system.
- rswail 4y agoSo my Linux kernel running the majority of the infrastructure of the company I work for is untrustworthy? Do you not trust kernel.org? Or the GPG signatures of the commits? What about Mozilla? As for "someone that can be sued", have you read any of the EULAs of the commercial entities that you think are "reputable" and "100% trustworthy"? You can't sue them. Similarly, do you trust all of the CAs that have certificates in your OS or browser trust store?