Are you kidding? Firefox is shit too. Every update they find new ways to prevent users from disabling updates and its notifications. Reminds me of fucking windows 10. Not only that, but their largest donator is actually Google and that's why it has it as its default search engine.

>>985 This, I've been using Firefox for years now and, while ultimately better than Chrome and "totally not Google-shit even though it's built on the engine that Google themselves develops", it's pretty terrible. Even the whole "it uses less RAM" has appeared to be a lie because, while yes, it's not opening a new pagefile for every single tab and extension, it's still loading shit across (by default) 8 different allocation processes and it has terrible optimization for releasing RAM that's really unnecessary. I mean, just stay in a YouTube tab for long enough switching between videos and it can easily take up 500MBs of RAM after a short while. So, speaking of such, what about Opera or Vivaldi? I've heard about... issues Opera has had regarding privacy concerns in the past, but they seem to be alright now, and Vivaldi was made by the guy who originally worked on Opera before they even had that whole "selling your data to China" thing. But I haven't done much research into either.

>>988 Opera has been based on Chromium for almost a decade, so it has the same issues as most Blink browsers. Vivaldi is also Chromium-based, but is more heavily modified. It's a shit situation all around. But I'd rather use Firefox with heavy modifications, or something like Pale Moon, than ever touch another Blink or Webkit browser. Why give Google the market share?

>>989 Yeah, that's pretty fucked then. Someone just needs to come in and give Google a run for their money. I don't care if it's some privacy-invading hog like what would happen if Facebook or Amazon got serious about making a browser, if it could get Google off their high horse where they don't have to worry about competition then it'd be nice, especially if it forced them into actually bettering their browser instead of the "updates" they make every so often. But sadly, I don't see that happening any time soon.

>>989 >>991 webengine/kit is essentially just blink without google shit instead it's apple shit basically all you gotta do is extend it's functionality a bit to get addon support and it'll out perform firefox. It doesn't take up a shit ton of ram. I believe this is what qutebrowser is trying to do. webkit is what's being used in suckless's surf browser, so it's simplicity has some merit. suckless is pretty extreme when it comes to minimalism All it needs is some better functionality. but if you don't give a shit about having ublock/umatrix support then it's pretty usable as is.

>>992 Well, aside from stuff like iPhones, Macs, etc. being shit with poor over-priced specs, Apple does make some pretty solid products, so, who knows? I'll wait on extension support though.

>>991 >Someone just needs to come in and give Google a run for their money Who would do that? Apple has Safari already, and it's a broken piece of shit that doesn't support modern features. And WebKit is still a cousin of Blink. Other upstarts are Blink. Microsoft is the only third-party still trying to be in the game, and they've also given up and gone with Chromium. They could do what companies do with Linux, and put their team to work developing features for Firefox, but instead they chose to Fork Chromium. Browser market share is dire. Chrome has a majority on its own, plus its derivatives. Vivaldi and Brave tried to make companies that could fund themselves, and Brave is running a scam to do it. Having your entire corporation built around a fork of someone else's browser, and you only get a couple percent in market share? Nobody is investing in that.

>>984 Browsers based on Blink and Webkit spring up like mushrooms after rain, but why are there no Gecko-based browers? All we have a Firefox forks like Palemoon, but the issue with forks is that once they diverge far enough from upstream they become unmaintainable and a security nightmare. I wonder how hard it could be to create a browser that's just a sane GUI for Gecko. It should piggy-back on top of Mozilla for all the low-level stuff, and implement a clean and sensible GUI on top of that. If it can be done with Webkit and Blink, why not Gecko? Why Gecko instead of Blink and Webkit? Because if you use one of those websites will count your browser as Google Chrome or Safari, further increasing the marketshare of Google. >>988 >Vivaldi Proprietary garbage.

>>998 >Browser market share is dire Everything related to the web is completely and royally fucked and it should be nuked back to the stone age. >Having your entire corporation built around a fork of someone else's browser, and you only get a couple percent in market share? Nobody is investing in that. (((Waterfox))) got lucky in that department I guess.

>>1003 Waterfox had some promise. I never used it but it had a good niche. Too bad they got bought by an ad company. IceCat is the one option not mentioned, but since they only update maybe once every year or three it's kind of hard to recommend. But it's the most libre option on the market. It's too bad the FSF doesn't have the resources to maintain their own browser, or to build a dedicated IceCat team that can do regular releases.

>>1004 When I switched from Firefox 56 ESR to Waterfox I was so so happy. Firefox 56 had gotten so outdated that several webpages would outright not load properly, and with Waterfox I managed to maintain all my extensions and UI and even gained some new cool and actually useful features for the first time in a decade (for example, delayed video start if tab is not focused). I felt really betrayed when they sold out and with the mental gymnastics of the old owner to try to justify it.

>>1002 >but why are there no Gecko-based browers? Because Mozilla refuses to do anything with Gecko aside from using it as a background to their browser. At any point they could've stripped down their browser to make something like Chromium, or they could've made something like Electron so all those developers who want to make a cross-platforming software but don't do any design on it and just make a Chrome instance locked to a single site could've used it for their application instead of Electron, but nope, let's not do that.

>>1002 >>1009 There were Gecko-based browsers in the past. Galeon was one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galeon

>>1006 Especially now. Ouch. https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/waterfox.html

>>1012 The continuous shilling of the same schizo blog for more than half a decade is proof that "trust, but verify" was nothing but a sad joke.

>>1013 There are citations all over that page. >is proof that "trust, but verify" was nothing but a sad joke. no u

>>1013 I do think Waterfox, especially now, is cucked and untrustworthy. Literally owned by a marketing firm; how sketchy is that? The blog is pure paranoia, though. Not every ping home is malicious, although minimizing them is good and telemetry is commonplace but upsetting. But it's hard to blame them, for example, grabbing a list of unsafe sites provided by Google. I'd like a way to disable that feature, but it's not phoning data to Google to scrape a provided list every browser uses now. >>1014 >There are citations all over that page To (((reddit))) posts, and their privacy policy, and other links that aren't helpful. The site connects dots that may or may not be there. Something helpful would be a dump of all telemetry from start-up, which can be captured using libpcap and then picked-apart. Based on the description, I would hazard a guess that Waterfox does everything Firefox does, possibly a little less, and that removing all of those features was too much effort so they just minimized their access and moved on. Not all of that stuff is harmful. There's a very real concern for data harvesting, but sites like this turn it into a joke. Mozilla, Google, or anyone else reading it will just shake their head because it reads like Roswell Incident writings. "Ah, the military showed up, so it must be aliens!". The normalization of data collection as a cover for harvesting personal data is a real concern, but sites like that don't help because they avoid the real issue (how commonplace CDNs are, how much the web infrastructure relies on big companies, how irresponsibly written most new features are because everyone is just making it up as they go and adoption matters more than quality engineering) and instead throws Waterfox under the bus for basically doing all the stuff Firefox does. It's a breach of their "we're more privacy-focused than Firefox" marketing, but honestly once you disable telemetry and install some add-ons Firefox is fine and reasonably secure. Trying to pick holes in their privacy strategy is a better bet, since they're upstream. Nothing in there looks like Waterfox' problem specifically, except that they promise to strip some of that out.

>>1011 Independent team that wasn't part of Mozilla and just a bunch of people working together on something. Still, sad that it ended that way, could've been a good alternative to all the "browsers" out now.

Mozilla having no answer to Electron after all these years is a huge blunder. They could work with any number of cross-platform GUI toolkit vendors to build a dead simple Gecko-based option, but they haven't. It's only allowed Chromium to become the standard for bloated "desktop" UIs. Absolutely terrible. And now their fallback is to turn themselves into a services company.

>>1014 >There are citations all over that page. We're are talking over a site that claims to have independently performed some tests via wireshark on some browser, yet for different browsers they do not perform the test themselves (which would take literally less than a minute) but rather link to another schizo blog. That's the main problem, plenty of anons simply look at the citations, think they seem legit, and don't even notice the glaring abnormalities. Then there's the fact that the schizo author thinks that someone disagreeing with them on the matter of privacy-friendly search engines must be a liar, the fact he takes Ungoogled Chromium claims at face value without a minimum of testing (he didn't even mention domain substitution), the equally lacking page on the Tor Browser (no mention of how NoScript works and its privacy implications, for example)... >>1016 >Literally owned by a marketing firm; how sketchy is that? Very sketchy, I agree with you on that. >I'd like a way to disable that feature Should be under Options - Security, unckeck both "Warn you about unwanted and uncommon software" and "Block dangerous and deceptive content", as that's how it was in Firefox, and IIRC it should be disabled by default anyways. >>1019 Mozilla is funded almost entirely by Google, take a guess as to why they didn't even try to compete with Electron.

>>1022 >Mozilla is funded almost entirely by Google, take a guess as to why they didn't even try to compete with Electron. Okay. I'm guessing it's because it wouldn't serve Mozilla's core mission and nobody was asking for it. I don't know how high you have to be to think that it's something to do with Google. Google doesn't care about Electron. Google has its own desktop application framework. It's called Chrome.

>>1023 I was the one who originally asked why they didn't answer Electron. I agree that being funded by Google is not the problem. But Mozilla needs to consider what their "core mission" is. And they are: their focus is shifting to offering services. They want to provide a VPN, news (Pocket), and possibly even e-mail and other common subscriptions with a "privacy focus". And I think it's doomed. Anyone caring about privacy already has niche providers like Mullvad or Protonmail. Anyone who doesn't has free webmail and a ton of overpriced VPNs to choose from. Mozilla's name is meaningless in this space. Their "core mission" is providing a platform-neutral, independent web rendering platform to as many users as possible so they have a truly open, free option which is standards-compliant. They're unable to do that when they don't have a majority of market share, especially since they have to play follow-the-leader to Chrome's autistic non-standard implementations. Even if Chrome and all the other browsers downstream died today, Electron would have to be maintained for embedded software well into the future. I have a feeling if Chrome does kill itself, Electron will be the IE6 equivalent for an extra decade after. Web standards changes will be halted because "Electron needs it to work this way". It's about market share and projecting dominance over standards. Plus it would have allowed income from offering support for the product directly. And while I personally like that Thunderbird uses a native GUI, they could have probably rewritten it on an Gecko-based Electron equivalent and pushed it as a stable local e-mail client for webmail. And if that took off, they would have a good reason to open their own privacy-oriented webmail service. The way they're going about this is all wrong. They want money to fund Firefox forever when all they had to do in the first place was not lose market share and to make bundling deals. Maybe if they'd been more aggressive, Edge would be Gecko-based.

Anybody else consider the possibility of offloading a bunch of shit the web browser usually does to a server? I don't know why I hadn't thought of it before, but there is a project I heard of that allows you to browse the modern web with old browsers that can't handle all the HTML5 bullshit or even older shit depending on how old of a browser you use. It's not very good, obviously, since it is limited to what those old browsers could support, but it does what it says. Here's the project I'm referring to: https://github.com/tenox7/wrp More importantly I think that idea has so much potential, but I'm not sure exactly what it could grow into. I just know it's paving the way to the fucking future. I can almost taste it. The freedom to use any browser from any device of any architecture running any operating system and still have all of the privacy features we need. The same useragent for everyone. Everybody connecting through the same server could potentially have the same exact rendering so nobody can be fingerprinted individually (strength in numbers). Content blocking done upstream so you could use a browser that doesn't support extensions if you had to. Or if you think having it prerender everything for you is a dead end, or you simply would want something a bit more individualized anyhow (not a bad idea, how can you trust one big man in the middle? and there would be less benefit to everyone running their own server in that case), then perhaps instead it could be something more inbetween than a full rendering proxy. Like say, it still outputs actual HTML but without the original javascript, then updates in real time, for anyone on a modern browser to take advantage of. Then the user could still inject custom CSS or run custom JS. Maybe custom JS can be optionally passed through somehow also to enable it to actually interact with the original unmodified page. Assets could be served from the server, obviously. Cached, and the server could even have a ridiculous amount of fonts and other shit packaged to deliver without it even having to hit up CDNs (Decentraleyes style). It would take a lot of brainstorming to come up with the best plan, but I think it's an excellent idea that could grow into something able to fucking kill these bloated unmaintainable monstrosities and better enable niche software and hardware to have a fighting chance again without completely having to abandoned most of the modern web or have extra hardware, or emulation/virtualization software, on hand when needed.

>>1016 >throws Waterfox under the bus for basically doing all the stuff Firefox does. yeah, so? If waterfox does everything firefox does what is the point of waterfox?

>>1023 >Okay. I'm guessing it's because it wouldn't serve Mozilla's core mission and nobody was asking for it. Technically true, as Mozilla's core mission is to make the higher ups richer than they already were. >Google doesn't care about Electron. Electron being chrome-based gives Google more power over web standards, and thus over the web as a whole. >>1076 >Anybody else consider the possibility of offloading a bunch of shit the web browser usually does to a server? It would be a security nightmare, it's akin to asking someone else to read a document for you while being completely unable to check if what they're saying is what's actually written on the doc: can't rely on digital signatures of any kind as by design you're modifying the data, can't even know you're actually talking with the right site and not a phishing one. By the way, that means zero privacy, the server needs to see every single element of the pages you visit in order to do its job. >Everybody connecting through the same server could potentially have the same exact rendering so nobody can be fingerprinted individually (strength in numbers). The server gets everyone's IP and history of requests, ah and it gets to keylog every single input sent too. >Content blocking done upstream so you could use a browser that doesn't support extensions if you had to. Content blocking also means sites the server doesn't like, such as 8chan perhaps. Also, nothing stops the server from blocking the original ads and replacing them with its own. >inb4 but I'll self host Congratulations, now you're running a normal browser (and all the javascript on the pages you visit) purely to feed HTML to your hipster browser, I guess it could make some sense if your server is a lot more powerful than the device with the hipster browser but even then it seems pointlessly convoluted as you'll gain no privacy or security benefits. If all of this wasn't retarded enough, your proposal means any attack or malfunction affecting a single such proxy server would affect many users, making Cloudflare even more of a powerhouse than it already is.

>>1076 Won't work. Transfer of HTML, CSS, and JS, even on a large site with dozens of scripts and style sheets, is probably a few kilobytes on average and a few megabytes at worst. Keep in mind major vendors value page loading speed. The problem is JS and HTML5 have been allowed to bloat the browser at runtime But the amount of bandwidth you'd need to render a page would be, well, a video stream. You'll use more bandwidth on a page in a single second than your entire browsing session would have taken. Plus security issues as >>1080 mentioned. I am curious, what is your set-up that you can't render HTML5? You are probably better-off just relying on sites that work and finding replacements for those that don't. (((They))) don't care a lick about you or your privacy or your CPU time. Your only option is to avoid them. The web is shit because it was designed to work for static pages. There's no getting around it. You either build static pages for the user or you make them bear the cost of dynamic pages.

>>1079 Being able to use XUL add-ons (in the Classic version) and having a bit less bloat than Firefox (both Classic and Current).

>>1076 >>1081 You don't have to serve the graphical representation of a page. You can render it on a server and send the client a simplified version. This is how Opera Mini works. I assume this is compatible with the mobile version of some otherwise javascript heavy sites like Facebook.

>>1083 It doesn't "render" the page for you, it grabs the page and then does processing to strip-out stuff and compress the data. That way you use less bandwidth. It's a special use case for phones that was needed 10 years ago when 3G was slow as hell and everyone had data caps. It won't do shit for your privacy; in fact, it's a man-in-the-middle.

>>1084 Opera Mini is absolutely does server-side rendering. Not rendering to a graphics buffer but rendering to a static DOM. Today it's a browser for hardware that can't run Blink comfortably, but originally it was for feature phones and things like the Wii. The compression feature predated this IIRC and is 100% orthogonal. And yeah, there's nothing private about letting someone else run your web browser.

>>1080 I was hoping for constructive criticism, not just criticism. Of course my suggestions need to be refined, not accepted blindly. They have many problems. So start brainstorming any time. >hipster browser Great, so you blindly accept the need to run somebody else's web rendering engine that you likely have no control over just to browse the internet. Fuck off. If the Linux/GNU/BSD ecosystem goes to shit so bad that you need out, or if something better comes along but nobody else but a small niche wants to move on, what browser are you going to use for web 2.0 shit that doesn't run? Write your own? Port Firefox all by yourself, then be unable to maintain it? Good luck with that. >>1081 >I am curious, what is your set-up that you can't render HTML5? You didn't read my whole post, did you. I'm running Pale Moon, Firefox, and Tor Browser. I have no problem with HTML5, although I avoid web 3.0 js shit whenever possible. The problem is I want to liberate people from the same 5 web browsers, the same operating systems, and the same hardware simultaneously and enable people to run what they fucking want without needing massive amounts of developer time like what a modern full web browser requires. >first half Indeed, doing all the rendering for you is a bad idea, as is sharing proxy servers between a bunch of people, especially if it's some kikes you don't know like Cuckflare. But there is more that can be done with the idea, I'm sure. I think streaming what is still regular HTML (a modified DOM) is a good starting point, because pre-rendering everything to png image maps like the web rendering proxy is a retarded shitshow even if it was a great proof-of-concept and something nice for people to be able to run those ancient legacy browsers. Since I'm not so concerned with legacy shit, but primarily with enabling more new web browsers to spring up without collapsing over the massive workload, doing it that way isn't necessary. Unfortunately, yes, security would be difficult to maintain, even ignoring the sharing a server aspect and going with selfhosted. The web is a massive security clusterfuck of itself, so there's no getting around that. >>1084 >>1085 It's a great idea, I didn't realize it had been done. Selfhosting a more mature, privacy and security focused, free software spiritual successor of sorts would eliminate the problem with letting someone else run your browser, and the browser you did decide to use could still have features of its own. I just don't see for instance Pale Moon getting ported to >ARM (somebody tried before, it very quickly died) >POWER9 >RISC-V >Haiku >any other nonstandard operating system Imagine having to run your browser of choice in an emulator. While that would certainly be a safe way to go seeing as how the web is full of spyware, it would be a real pain in the ass and you're then relying on 2 bloated monstrosities, a browser and an emulator. Emulators can fuck up too, and a web browser would need higher accuracy to emulate properly for sure. I've had issues experimenting with running nwjs HTML5 games in wine. It may work now, not sure, but the point is how complicated this all is. Of course, wine isn't an emulator, so I imagine there would be even more fuckery based on previous attempts at trying to run e.g. Windows in a virtual machine without virtualization extensions (so interpreter mode). I don't doubt not many people care. But I think it is important to have the freedom of choice for when we need it. Having to run an x86 server that renders shit to a less complicated DOM for the shittier DIY web browser you're running doesn't sound so bad, the same way running Windows on an airgapped machine that you only boot up when you want to play a game that doesn't run in wine or have a native Linux port doesn't sound so bad. So I'm just spitballing here hoping other people could help come up with better ideas, and it gets the idea into a bunch of anons' minds so that maybe one of us at some point take it further. I'm certainly considering a bunch of shit I've seen posted here before (well, not "here" yet, but back on 8chan).

>>1086 >I was hoping for constructive criticism, not just criticism. You received constructive criticism, if you don't want to be told that your idea is inherently insecure then don't blindly post your inherently insecure ideas and learn2security. >Great, so you blindly accept the need to run somebody else's web rendering engine Your entire idea relies on that, with the server needing a modern web rendering engine to do its job properly. That's why it's hipster, you get to look cool but you're not actually doing anything different or worthwile. >If the Linux/GNU/BSD ecosystem goes to shit so bad that you need out Windows exists, if the FOSS ecosystem somehow self-destructs that's evidence their ideas were completely wrong, especially in regards to robustness and cooperation. >if something better comes along but nobody else but a small niche wants to move on Then it's either not actually better, or better for specific things and you can use it too for that. >what browser are you going to use for web 2.0 shit that doesn't run? Let's say it once more: your idea relies on a server running a modern web browser. Your idea doesn't actually let you avoid certain browsers or operating systems, it only sweeps them under the carpet so you can pretend you're not completely relying on them. You're a complete dumbass with a half baked idea and an ego the size of Jupiter, fuck off.

Are there any minor players attempting to create a browser that isn't bloated or using the large hardware overhead every piece of modern software operates under? Are we doomed to suffer with incompetent browsers? Why can't someone cobble together an open sores browser from the remnants of presto after Opera jumped ship to blink?

>>1142 >web browser >not bloated This is a self contradiction. In order to run the absolute bloated cancer known as modern web, you need an equally bloated browser or else it can't run 95% of websites. You can't just "make a browser" for the same reason.

>>1142 pretty much this >>1144 There will always be some absurd requirement for new webbrowsers to comply to in order to run literally any modern website or legacy site. The state of modern web revolves around the dumbass backward design of supporting websites instead of websites complying with non-shit standards. Can't risk breaking amazon, facebook, or google. Otherwise all the normalfags might throw a tantrum.

>>1142 I think only netsurf is serious about that.

>>1147 >Can't risk breaking amazon, facebook, or google. Otherwise all the normalfags might throw a tantrum. Otherwise you won't have an userbase, you dumb sperg: especially as those companies have tendrils everywhere so their stuff breaking will affect a lot of seemingly unrelated sites.

>>1142 There's NetSurf, but they made some bad choices years ago and have to redesign their whole engine if they want JS to run. Additionally Andreas Kling, the fag from 4cuck is writing a browser from the ground up to go with SerenityOS. Judging by the amount of contributors and the weird mix of values (I write my OS in C++ and JS in the browser is a priority yet I value speed and security), I think this project the best chance of being somewhat competitive to the bloat giants. btw if you need to use bloat, but don't want bloat on your compootie wootie, there's always this https://github.com/tenox7/wrp

>>1154 WRP is a cool toy but nothing more, and you completely misunderstood how it works.

>>1154 >WRP Nice.

>>985 >Every update they find new ways to prevent users from disabling updates and its notifications. Stop using Windows.

>>1004 Someone updates Icecat, at least on Arch. The current version is the same as Firefox ESR.

A new browser based on pale moon. There is no version for bsd or linux yet. The maintainer said they will appear soon. https://lolifoxbrowser.moe/

>>984 Wait, what is wrong with Rust?

>>984 Wait, what is wrong with Rust?

>>1193 You wouldn't know unless you got to know her better. Rust might not be as pretty as the other girls. But she's always there for me, to help me through my mistakes. C++ and her older sister C are just abusive.

>>1193 >CB6000 >when the HTv3 exists Shiggy diggy. Also I code in C++ and ASM, but nothing too serious.

> ctrl+F "user.js" > 0 results https://spyware.neocities.org/guides/firefox.html

>>1288 >still shilling it Kill yourself, schizo

>>1291 what's so bad about it?

>>1297 Everything, the inconsistent testing methodologies in particular are so bad you should assume everything written there was made up.

>>1197 Why do you know so much about cuck cages? >>1196 > she

>>1184 is this bull? the site won't load for me.

>>1575 I found this on Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20200901004144/https://lolifoxbrowser.moe/ The links in the archive still seem to work, in case you want to try it. A bit of research shows that it was created by a random 4chan /bant/ user who also posted it on an obscure imageboard: https://archive.nyafuu.org/bant/thread/11169853 http://tohno-chan.com/cr/res/3119.html Also I found a couple of screenshots in a random 4chan /v/ thread.

>>1577 Thanks lad.

>Pale Moon >The Gentooman's preferred choice Sure, the Gentooman's preferred choice for a browser that supports CSS and Javascript. But the real Gentooman's preferred choice is Links2 with -g option and with fake firefox mode enabled.

>>984 A good privacy (and security) tip is to run any browser you use in a sandboxing software like bubblewrap. There's also firejail, but I don't recommend it due to it's complexity and the fact that bubblewrap still achieves decent enough sandboxing for most use-cases. You can invoke bubblewrap in a terminal by typing bwrap. You can also get a list of options with the --help flag. The Arch wiki has a decent, brief tutorial on it too. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Bubblewrap

>"""Privacy""" thread into the trash it goes >Schizo thread into the trash it goes >no useful advice how to run a jew nigger cock free browser (because there is none) into the trash it goes >They track everything you do in some way. case in point. this is why hapas are superior to wh*tes

I use Brave because I consider every browser to be insecure. Might as well get lolcoins while I shitpost and browse the net

Is Basilisk any good for security in comparison to Pale Moon? I was thinking of using of using it since it might be able to support KeepassXC-Browser, along with actual privacy-enhancing addons.

>>1683 Put nanochang back online and then fuck off back there h*panigger.

>>1685 Basilisk is Pale Moon but forked from a slightly less outdated version of Firefox (I think it's from before Firefox started moving onto WebExtensions), and while Moonchild claims it exists to test and develop shit that later is ported to PM it can be used without problem. It's biggest advantage over Pale Moon is a slightly better compatibility with websites (webcomponents and similar shit are a no-no, tho), other than that they're pretty much the same.

>>1689 How's WaterFox?

>>1690 Owned by an advertising firm.

>>1690 Waterfox has two versions. The Classic version basically is Firefox 56 with continuous backported security patches. It supports XUL add-ons and most WebExtension add-ons, and has basic multiprocess support. The Current version is based on Firefox 68 ESR and just like the Classic version it gets security patches. This version gets it's Firefox base updated from time to time, and because it uses post v57 versions of Firefox it's only compatible with WebExtensions (but on the other side it has full multiprocess support). In both cases the main differences with Firefox are the removal of "bloat" like Pocket and some of Mozilla's experiments (like Qliqz), some pro-privacy tweaks, and a couple of cosmetic changes. It must be mentioned that the project was bought by System1, and ad company that also bought Startpage, and while they haven't interfered in the development of the browser there's still a chance of it being compromised in the future. I personally use its Classic version because it has better add-on and site compatibility than Pale Moon while having less undesirable features than Firefox, but I may drop it if something shady added by System1 is found on it.

>>1692 Personally I'm very weary of the fact that System1 owns Waterfox. If you start Wireshark, then open Waterfox for the first time, you can see that it connects to Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager. Have a look at this article http://spywaredrcdg5krvjnukp3vbdwiqcv3zwbrcg6qh27kiwecm4qyfphid.onion/articles/waterfox.html Clearnet mirror in case you're dumb enough to browse imageboards on the clearnet: https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/waterfox.html

>>1712 >If you start Wireshark, then open Waterfox for the first time, you can see that it connects to Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager Not that anon and while I can't try a new install I just closed my browser and opened it again and it didn't connect to any Google domains. I also remember doing experiments previously to try to validate what that site said about Waterfox and never could. Not that I trust Waterfox that much either but that page peeves me a great deal given how badly it's written, how inconsistent it is, how I can't reproduce the things it says, and how popular it's gotten.

>>1714 >while I can't try a new install Why not? Just remove and reinstall. Have wireshark open and sniffing packets while you do that. Then analyze the packets afterwards. >Pro Wireshark Tip: Go to Edit -> Preferences -> Name Resolution and make sure 'Resolve Network (IP) Addresses' is ticked. That'll make it a lot easier to see what domains Waterfox is connecting to.

>>1684 >I consider every browser insecure, so I picked a really insecure one. Bro. Why?

>>1742 He wants "lolcoins", whatever the fuck that is.

>>1735 >Why not? Just remove and reinstall Because it's my main browser and I don't want to have to save and restore all my bookmarks, extensions, configurations, and whatnot. I don't see it connecting to anything shady when I inspect the traffic right now so I think it's good enough. Have you been able to reproduce it? >Pro Wireshark Tip: Go to Edit -> Preferences -> Name Resolution and make sure 'Resolve Network (IP) Addresses' is ticked. I didn't know about this, that's a pretty handy tip, thanks! I was filtering the packets by DNS and TCP with SYN flag active and inspecting the flow. >>1743 Brave has this scheme where they give you some sort of crypto currency of theirs when you use their browser and see their ads or something like that.

>>1747 I wonder how much money the Brave devs make from those ads.

Why are browser spell checkers always so fucking retarded? They're all missing like half the words in the english dictionary. I keep thinking I'm fucking retarded and have to look up words only to find they're real words I'm spelling fine and the spell check is just brain dead.

>>1749 Brave Rewards are useless. I wonder if anyone actualy seriously uses it.

>>1747 And Brave's cryptocurrency scheme is a failure. Few, if any use it. I use Brave on mobile as an alternative web browser since it has built in support for ad blocking but otherwise, it's meh.

>>1192 Rust is an abomination and deserves to die.

>>1749 Enough to at least justify a development team I guess.

Pozilla transferred ownership/hosting of the Servo bowser engine to the Linux foundation. Is that bad?

>>1805 >trade pozzed foundation for another pozzed foundation nothing will change.

>>1196 C++ has always been a lady to me, but I've also always beat her with the violence she demanded back in '03.

Whatever happened to Coincidence Detector? I tried downloading it again and it's not working. Think glowniggers whacked the devs?

>>1791 The number of fags I've seen who say they use Brave leads me to believe it has a sizeable user count, and a lot of them probably buy into the scheme. Even if they take a loss after ad revenue, they can probably talk some investors into keeping them alive for some time based on the number of installs. >>1805 It means Rust's single successful project, the one it was developed for, won't die when Mozilla an heros themselves over the next few years. And it might spread Rust's pozload to the Linux kernel, which is the last thing we need.

>> 1288 Guide has not worked for years.

>>1792 >And Brave's cryptocurrency scheme is a failure <BAT's price is valued at $0.20 <even lower than XRP, a failed attempt at making a centralized coin that has been in flames for weeks because the gov is investigating the company behind it How pitiful. >I use Brave on mobile as an alternative web browser since it has built in support for ad blocking but otherwise, it's meh Ungoogle-Chromium's Android port, Kiwi Browser and Firefox/Fennec support add-ons (uBlock Origin included), and Bromite and Vivaldi have a basic ad blocker as well.

>>2100 I used Brave Mobile for awhile and while I agree that its little crypto scheme is retarded I found it to be a remarkably fast, light browser, and the little home screen that shows you how many ads you've blocked and how much time you've saved is kinda neat.

>chrome googles cuck shit, no thanks >firefox stopped using when they removed CEO for donating to veterans, they absolutely cucked out and it seems it was the right choice >palemoon the browser i jumped to from firefox, it was great for a while until it decided to become its own thing separate from firefox and started having memory leaks >waterfox the browser i jumped to from palemoon, good at first now it has the same problem as palemoon, memory leaks and has to be restarted after 5 or so websites visited so the computer isn't slowed to a crawl. it was bought by jews so now it might as well be firefox 2. >brave lmao >dissenter lmao 2: e-boogaloo >tor good but too slow and incompatible with 90% of the internet, only good for CP is there any one browser i can use that doesn't memory leak like a retard with brain hemorrhage? i just want to keep the browser open and use it without it consuming more and more memory until it explodes. the only browsers i haven't tried yet are Icecat, Opera, and vivaldi. are any of those any good?

>>2166 >waterfox memory leaks Not in my experience anon. Are you still using the 'classic' version (aka palemoon style) or the newer engine version? If you're using Classic that might be why.

Is Librewolf getting better? I thought development was dead, but now there's some new maintainers reviving the project.

>>2169 I wouldn't put any hope in a browser fork. Unless it's something like Ungoogled Chromium, which is basically just keeping up with Chromium with minor changes. Maintaing a browser fork is a massive undertaking due to how shit the entire web is. Mozilla have royally fucked up by making Gecko not properly embeddable. There are a lot of niche browsers out there which are just wrappers around WebKit or Blink, but using those means you browser will be counted as Safari or Chrome in statistics, making web developers give even more priority to those two. I feel like the only hope we have is a new independent browser engine. Servo aims to have embedding as a first-class feature, so that might be something. Ten or so years from now.

>>2179 I love(d) Gecko, but I definitely think Mozilla missed the boat here. Webdsevs chase trends. But I foresee Servo, if it ever matures, being a superior engine by all benchmarks only to have Electron and other wrappers basically shrug and go "it's too much work and everything is already optimized for Blink/WebKit, so we're stuck in this ecosystem". Mozilla now needs to deliver two really solid products in a row. They need the engine and they also need a wrapper for it that is good enough to convince new software to use it over Electron. Otherwise we're losing the desktop via the backdoor of native GUIs being replaced in favor of webshit.

>>2183 Mozilla has already abandoned Servo, it is now handled by the Linux Foundation. Depending on whom you ask, Servo was either the future of Firefox or just an experimental side project, so who knows what their plans really were. >>2183 > Webdsevs chase trends. I fucking hat webdev, even more than Pajeets. I work partially in web dev and it's just layers upon layers of hacks and abuses, held together by duct tape. You would need to have some serious brain damage to actually want to work in web dev, and most of then do have serious brain damage. Which is a shame, because I really do like web design where it is just clean semantic HTML and CSS for presentation. But no, we gotta chase the same shitty trends everyone else is chasing.

I don't see anyone discussing the fact that mozilla has totally cucked out and is no longer a viable option. Use anything mozilla touches at your own peril, you're probably being tracked by insane social justice activists. https://reclaimthenet.org/firefox-maker-mozilla-calls-for-more-than-deplatforming/

>>2195 >I don't see anyone discussing the fact that mozilla has totally cucked out and is no longer a viable option You must have missed that discussion 5 years ago anon.

>>2195 Mozilla a pozzed but it's the choice between them and Google. And Google has both the money, the advertising platform, and an insane SJW agenda. They allocate funding based on progressive stack value of employees, not on engineering capabilities. Mozilla's biggest problem is being run by a terrible CEO who is unable to find them funding and burns what little money they do have. It all started when they kicked out that one CEO for donating some money to an anti-gay charity and ever since the SJWs in the company have been emboldened. At some point the wheels are going to fall off. I hope Mozilla salvageable, or their bones can be picked for the best bits and turned into something great.

>>2197 Mozilla seems to be way worse than you think: https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/mozilla.html I'm well aware that DigDeeper is a faggot, but he's the best compilation of sources about this that I know of.

>>2169 Seems pretty decent. I was actually playing around with IceCat earlier and discovered Librewolf today. I hope there isn't some catch and it's secretly pozzed.

>>2201 >take a stroll through the site since I haven't in awhile >he has a page where he updates information about the webring including various drama His writing is also eerily similar to the writing style of niggerpill. Still good infotainment none the less.

>>2201 >click page on useful Linux software >recommends torrenting over Tor with literally who software What a nigger.

>>2224 He says in the excerpt that it's uncharted territory and likely not completely secure. Not sure what more you can expect.

>>2226 It's not uncharted territory, this has been discussed for over a decade https://blog.torproject.org/bittorrent-over-tor-isnt-good-idea

What about Surf? Been using it for a day and I think its good for basic web browsing and editing if that's all you care about. So far as I can tell, it's pretty secure.

>>2258 Looks like it uses WebKit, so I doubt in the long run it's going to be any different than anything else using WebKit, which is pretty much any browser that is not Firefox (for now) or Pale Moon.

>What are your favorite addons and browsing tricks to protect your privacy? Share them here so we can all be a little safer. Fucking kys. How about how to get rid of bloat? Every fucking horse shit browser takes literally 10 minutes to start, another 1 minute to open a tab, and 30 seconds to switch between tabs.

>>2304 Sounds like you need a better computer :^)

>>2255 Most of this is just the tor devs kvetching about people slowing down the network. The actual risk of exposing your IP comes down to using incompetent and improperly configured torrenting software. There is nothing inherently wrong with torrenting over tor.

>>1747 >I don't want to have to save and restore all my bookmarks, extensions, configurations, and whatnot. At bookmarks and logins are super easy to export and most extensions have a way you can export your configuration to a file as well. Overall it's not difficult or time consuming to migrate browsers. I recently went from brave back to firefox

>>984 Im using waterfox and it seems to work pretty well. I think im running an out of date version. My addons slow it down a lot sometimes

>>2940 Remember that Waterfox guy sold out a while ago. It's still good but it may not be so forever. LibreWolf got sort of revived and that's very similar to WaterFox: vanilla firefox with stupid telemetry taken out (LibreWolf actually does zero connections when started which is weirdly nice).

Something that looked up and figured out that I figure would be useful for some anons' activities. >make a folder somewhere >look for Chromium's shortcut >copy-paste it, go to the copy's properties > press space go to the Target field, then add: --user-data-dir= >to the end of the field, then add the directory of the folder, leading to its insides >Click okay, then start the modified shortcut copy You now have a separate instance of Chromium that seems completely separate from your main instance. I know that this works with Ungoogled-Chromium, but I imagine this at least works for any Chrome derivative. I imagine this is helpful for if want to be extra sure that if a browser tracks you, it doesn't get information that's connected to your main Chromium instance.

>>2980 You can do the same with Firefox and derivatives, you just create another session. I have my imageboard/lewd/random session, my email and IRL stuff in another, banking in a different one, and one for when I can't avoid browsing a site that doesn't have good reputation. Ultimately I don't think it does much in terms of preventing tracking, but it doesn't cost me anything and it keeps everything compartmentalized so if one session is compromised somehow it won't mix in with the rest.

>>2978 LibreWolf needs JS to download lol.

>I don't like that 20 tabs in firefox need 1 GB of RAM nowadays <HURR DURRRR DON'T YOU KNOW? UNUSED RAM IS WASTED RAM XDDDDD

What about browsers for phones? The options for android seem to be pretty limited. It's either chrome, firefox, brave, or opera. I've been using Opera simply because I perceive it to be outside the realm of the "big guys" but I might be totally naive in that assumption. In terms of functionality, I really like it, with the exception that it will often add a bookmark to my bookmarks section for some corporate website. Nike or TurboTax or BestBuy or just any other product/company. Which leads me to be suspicious that there might be other undesirable behavior going on behind the scenes.

maybe this? (coming soon) https://binaryoutcast.com/projects/borealis/

My Waterfox Classic installation is becoming increasingly broken because of not updating it in a very long time, and since I'm pretty much forced to upgrade I decided to take some time to analyze what the new version is doing since everything that's happened with it has made me a bit uncomfortable. I thought I'd post my analysis for others to see since I always see other Waterfox Classic users here so maybe it'll be useful to other people. The TL;DR is that the browser doesn't seem to do anything that the original Firefox wouldn't do, and that Waterfox (and the company that it's now a part of) doesn't seem to have added anything new and invasive to it, which is something that I'm happy to report. Overall, the biggest problem with the browser is some of its defaults and some of the things it'll do while updating, but I haven't seen it connect anywhere shady while browsing or when doing actions inside the browser (e.g. "(((analytics)))"). As mentioned, one of the biggest problems with the browser is updating. There's a shitload of things the browser "needs" to update, among them the browser itself, blocklists for several types of content such as webpages with malware and malicious addons, anti-tracking stuff, language packs, search engines, DRM (as in anti piracy) video libs, and probably other stuff I'm forgetting. I'm going to go over these in bullets. * The browser will come with self update enabled, but disabling it seems to completely disable the version check, which is what's expected. Honestly this is the least of the problems as it seems to just send a request to waterfox.com without any parameters or cookies, so it really is the minimum information required to update your browser, and again it can easily be disabled. * Playback of DRM media can be configured through the preferences pages, but even if you have it disabled the browser will still try to "update" these features for you, which involves downloading a fucking closed source anti piracy shared library from Google for no good reason. I think disabling general updates will also disable this request. The domain that gets accessed for this is redirector.gvt1.com. * Similar to the previous bullet, Waterfox will go fetch an h264 shared library that I imagine doesn't come with the browser. I didn't really dig further on this library because it's probably required by the browser for videos to work properly, but it's not a nice way of distributing libraries, and apparently this also gets disabled when you disable updating. The domain it gets the library from is ciscobinary.openh264.org. * Waterfox also comes with "safebrowsing" like every other browser but unfortunately even if you disable "deceptive content" filtering and regular updates, it will still go check with Mozilla (or Google if something goes wrong with the first alternative) for updated domain blocklists. Even if you turn everything related to this feature off in about:config, it'll still go check. The only workaround I found was removing the domains for the safebrowsing service so it literally has nowhere to go check (look up safebrowsing on about:config). * Moreover, Waterfox will go check for "tracking protection" updates even if you asked it never to use tracking protection and turn off everything related to this and the updates in the GUI and about:config. It makes a lot of requests for this, seemingly to block plugins and flash stuff, but it's not very evident as the response is just binary stuff. The domain it accesses is tracking-protection.cdn.mozilla.net. It seems for some reason that this can actually be turned off by removing the safebrowsing domains as mentioned in the previous bullet, even if the domain it goes check for this isn't in any of those keys. Go figure... * Because you can never have enough blocklists, there's an additional blocklist it requests which seems to be related to drivers, certificates, extensions, devices, and other stuff. There's no option in the GUI to disable this, but you can do it through about:config if you wish through the extensions.blocklist.enabled key. The domain it checks for this is blocklists.settings.services.mozilla.com, which you can also remove from about:config for extra safety. * In addition, Waterfox will check with Mozilla where your IP hails from, and it doesn't matter whether you have "Enable Geolocation" enabled. The information it gets is just your country's name and country code, but it still shouldn't be making that request. The domain it uses for this is location.services.mozilla.com. There doesn't seem to be any way to deactivate this. * As if this wasn't enough, Waterfox sends a shitton of requests to Mozilla to update every language pack that exists for Firefox, even if you don't have any of them installed, which is retarded but such is life. Much like previously there's no option to configure this check, so the only option is to add the domain to hosts (versioncheck-bg.addons.mozilla.org). * On top of all this, Waterfox does the captive portal check against Mozilla, where it basically makes a dummy request to a service to see if the browser has access to the internet, and this is done pretty often. This can easily be disabled in about:config though (network.captive-portal-service.enabled). Finally, search suggestions also come enabled by default so everything you type (no, seriously, everything) on your navigation bar gets sent to Microsoft (by default), however there's an option to disable this in the GUI. While this is less than an ideal list of issues, it doesn't seem out of the ordinary considering where this browser comes from, and as previously mentioned Waterfox hasn't added any spyware of its own. Most of the stuff it requests are lists so hopefully the real work with your information happens in your browser and doesn't go anywhere else, specially if you've configured the browser to not use those services, but at least safebrowsing I think does go query with the real URL to a Mozilla or Google service when it gets a hit on a local list "just to be safe", which is bullshit. To summarize, if you: * Disable search suggestions * Disable Geolocation * Disable Waterfox updates * Disable updating search engines * Remove urls for safebrowsing from about:config * Disable captive portal from about:config * Disable blocklists from about:config You're left with just the requests to the location service and language pack update service. You can then add those two URIs to your hosts if you wish, and then the browser doesn't make any requests whatsoever outside of those that are necessary to load the pages you ask it to. This is the release I tested: 99afdad5fdf3f82884e9f626e3de08392adbade6924d7292062745cacef68fdc waterfox-classic-2021.04.2.en-US.linux-x86_64.tar.bz2

>>1192 I don't have any opinion about the language itself, but it's surrounded by some of the most autistic shills that make Jehovah witnesses look tame. The sad reality is, if the language is so good like they claimed, why haven't Firefox be completely rewritten in Rust, and why did Firefox laid off their entire Rust and Servo team?

>>2179 >Unless it's something like Ungoogled Chromium, which is basically just keeping up with Chromium with minor changes That's what LibreWolf is. They take Firefox's original source code, build it without shit like Pocket and the gay experiments, and add a huge .cfg file (file related) to disable everything that can be used to track you and that can be tweaked to your liking with any text editor. >>4160 >coming soon He has been saying this for years.

>>4198 There's a roytam1 browser for XP called BNavigator that seems to be it.

This new Firefox UI looks terrible. Why do they keep making their browser worse? You can disable it with browser.proton.enabled for now, but who knows for how long.

>>4198 Can Librewolf let me save my zoom settings per site? My autism was not pleased and I didn't find any settings on the cfg file that would let me do it.

>>4319 I rolled back to Firefox 88 and don't think I'll go forward. The new UI is unusably bad, and they removed the "View Image" option from the context menu, which was a big win over Chrome. Why would anyone need "open image in new tab" to be on a right-click menu? That's what middle-clicking is for!

>>4319 Aside from taking up a few more pixels on the screen I don't think it's much worse than the old UI. Then again, I think that most browser UIs are bad. Why can't they just use native widgets of the GUI framework they are built on?

So... What should I use for my precocity?

>>2272 Same for this browser I just heard about called nyxt, it's written in lisp and uses WebKitGTK. It seems as powerful as qutebrowser in function but should be faster by virtue of not being written in python. I haven't tried it yet but might be better to compile on my laptop, and it has emac/vim-like keybindings.

>>4319 The worst part for me is that it got rid of the "compact" mode that reduces the size of the top bar and saves some pixels. Fucking hell. >>4331 No idea. Can vanilla Firefox do that without add-ons? If yes, then ask on LibreWolf's repo about the settings for it, if no, then try with an add-on. >>4372 You should do some edging exercises or masturbate using other parts of your body aside from your dick.

>>4375 Yes, it's a default setting on Firefox. Zoom to 150% on random site #3, close browser, open again, go to random site #3 and it'll be 150%. Librewolf just disables that for some autismo about privacy I'm sure. Tried reading the docs for it and found the setting in a cfg file but it's marked as deprecated and does nothing when changed (blegh)

>>4374 The big gimmick of Nyxt is that since it is written in Common Lisp and includes a Swank server you can hook Emacs up to it and edit your configurations live on the fly. Try something out, write it to your init.lisp file and you are good to go. And since it is written in Common Lisp you can change pretty much any aspect of the browser, you are not boxed in like in other browsers. I have know about if for a while, but last time I checked (which was two years ago) it was still very experimental. I might give it a try now though. > and uses WebKitGTK. It can use both WebKit and Blink. Gecko is not supported though because Mozilla was retarded and made it practically impossible to embed Gecko.

No wonder Firefox gets shittier with each release. >inb4 going to cuckchan

>>4383 Why do the mozilla based browsers zoom so awkwardly compared to chromium, the pages get these deformed buttons and input fields. Maybe it's a GTK thing?

>>4436 New firefox doesn't have that, but I know what you mean.

>>4433 >going to cuckchan

Is this fork of Pale Moon any good? https://git.nuegia.net/webbrowser.git/ It's mentioned on here: https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/browsers.html

>>5898 Looks like it's only for aficionados willing to build it. Users might be in the low dozens.

the only browsers worth mentioning are ungoogled chromium and librewolf. perhaps tor browser if youre jared fogle. inb4 some obscure terminal based browser, if you know about that shit you dont need a noob thread like this.

>>5958 Chromium contributes to web engine monoculture but it's better than nothin'

>>5962 >web engine monoculture its already here. either use globohomo browser or limit yourself to like 25% of clearnet sites

>>6038 How many sites do you really visit though? Which are broken? 25% of clearnet sites? Most "normal" people only visit 10 sites tops and a handful of others like banking and whatnot every blue moon.

Snake-holed piece of shit that intentionally tries to bully people off of using it by making it look like ass.

>>6038 amen

Firefox is ran by a bunch of niggerfaggots who love niggerfaggotry and the LGBTQIA+++. Avoid.

Anyone tried nyxt, Otter Browser or BadWolf before? I saw the last two being mentioned here: https://www.unixsheikh.com/articles/choose-your-browser-carefully.html Unfavorable review on librewolf somewhere here: https://digdeeper.neocities.org/ghost/browsers.html

>>7389 >>7580 take a logic course lmao

Are there any privacy front-ends for yandex search?

Best mobile browser?

Anyone knows about the recent drama going with Pale Meme? I just know that an unofficial fork was killed, a mayor update cancelled, a team member was expelled and another one resigned from some project. >>7860 Mull.

>>7860 Bromite (blocks ads, based on chromium) or Naked Browser (doesn't block ads, wrapper for android web view which is based on chromium). I've also heard mull is good, but I haven't used it. Although if you don't give a shit about telemetry, Brave is by far the best in terms of ad blocking

>>8225 >palememe drama don't know much, this might be of hep to you? https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=28090 the mayor developer seems to be tobin... which seems about right.

>>5962 >monoculture >a "good" thing I'd unironically rather have to use 10 different browsers to experience the full or most of the web. Centralized power is never a good thing much like how planting nothing but soy and corn at the expense of desertification of once fertile soil and kept alive through heavy usage of pesticides and imported fertilizers (like from Russia for example) is also a bad thing. Fuck the monoculture web and fuck monoculture farms to. Go build yourselves a diverse permaculture backyard to feed yourselves rather than wasting it on fucking grass. Oh and you better learn your gardening and hunting skills now rather than later be Bill Gates/The Great Satan of Silicon Valley is dead set on starting another Holodomor/Great famine 2.0right here in North America. Why? Fuck if I know, he's got wealth to last him for several generations but apparently that's not enough so he wants to kill a bunch of people, frankly I'm just upset my shitposting turned out to be real. Sunflower seeds might be a good start since you can dry them and they'll provide you with plenty of plant protein (good plant protein unlike fucking soy) and you get a mighty big harvest just from a few. >>3431 To be fair good RAM is fucking expensive and the supply chain issues haven't made it any better but I'll probably get a new laptop soon that uses at least 32GBs since the web is likely to get even more bloated and worse before it gets better. Preferably one either from Framework or System76 because I don't want to pay the Wingblows tax. >>4157 >opera It's still Chromium but instead of sending your data to Silicon Valley it goes to Beijing instead so if your gonna continue using it just make sure never to go vacationing in China any of your personal hardware or at all to be quite frank unless you plan on joining the Chinese PLA I guess... >>2166 >stopped using when they removed CEO for donating to veterans, they absolutely cucked out and it seems it was the right choice Ehh while the Mozilla team is a bunch of fraggots and ones who unironically sold out to Soro's it's still less cancerous than than all the reskinned google browsers out there. Plus you can just get Libre Wolf with is Firefox minus the gay global homo shit. >>1743 >, whatever the fuck that is. Meme crypto and a pyramid scam most of the time unless you were one of the few that actually enabled BAT's and became autistically obsessed with them. At least Brave has a decent ad block.

>>8227 Tobin left, if I remember correctly. Palemoon was a pretty great browser but it's not that compatible with many modern websites. I'd probably use a Firefox fork in that case.

Tips for Private Browsing 1. Use Google Chrome and disable telemetry in the settings, or if you want to use the Tor network, use the Tor browser. 2. Use private mode to prevent persistent tracking (history, cookies, site data) 3. Block third-party cookies to prevent cross-site tracking. 4. Use a VPN to prevent IP address tracking. 5. Do not install any browser extensions, not even an adblocker. They have privileged access, require you to trust the developer, make you stand out, and weaken site isolation.

Does anyone know about this browser? It allows users to play flash applications on it before the 2021 lockdown. Is there anything else to this? Is it safe? Are there any weird backdoors to worry about? It has a github page to view on at least. https://flash.pm/browser/ https://github.com/radubirsan/FlashBrowser/tree/v0.81

>>8405 oW0 whats this flash was abandoned because it had goatse level gapping security holes, flash should never be allowed to connect to the internet ever again, if you want to run flash files use a standalone that you can firewall dont run flash on any site, the sites that still have flash should be treated as malicious and are probably still running beef hooks just download the .swf file from the html page and run it in a standalone flash player, not on the fucking site

>>8406 Flash was abandoned because jewgle and crapple were mad adobe cornered the online interactive content sector and conspired together to destroy it from within via HTML5. You have mobile phones and browser companies to blame. With almost all modern browsers running some form of Chrome and phones phasing out Flash support at the beginning of the 2010s, there was zero reason to continue its development.

Hardened Tor browser or a torified CLI browser is the only way to go for privacy assuming you have taken measures outside internet privacy. Hard block javascript. Disable telemetry and webgl. Only use TBB at the highest security level, disable automatic updates, remove NoScript and replace it with uBlock Origins or uMatrix.

If you use FireFag you might be interested in this -> https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/blob/master/user.js

>>8535 You are almost certainly a mentally ill autist that is either a homosexual or a pedophile If you are this invested in internet browsers.

>>8536 Say that to my face not online and see what happens