HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

firefox shills are still this desperate to prevent brave from gaining their marketshare LOL

bad goy

so this is the power of open sores

even if that was true, which it isnt because of >fire your CEO
>he makes a new browser from scratch pretty much
>implements some opt-in feature that you shit on because "lmao no privacy"
>implement same feature a year later, but as opt-out

lol, that's it?
who hasn't already done that?

>personalized but private
What does that even mean?

Attached: cap_(アニメ) YAT安心！宇宙旅行 第2期 第01話 「新たなる船出！」 (LD 640x480 WM (640x480, 67K)

its like wink wink private
but also like personal to you and only you wink wink

Normies with some basic adblocker, which is where firefox plans to make bank obviously

>not disabling pocket
>not deleting the pocket xpi from the firefox folder
shiggy diggy

Being opt-in does not make brave's ad policy okay you hypocrite

you mean the ad policy that's nonexistent and literally won't affect you unless you enable it?

And you actually trust it won't be doing anything in the background without telling you?

check the code, its FOSS. no need for conspiracy

Funny how this argument isn't allowed when it's used for firefox

let me know when firefox isn't trying to serve me (((sponsored content))) by default

But firefox's is totally fine that you have to opt out + go into config and change some shit?
Ooooooooooooooooook
I see where this is going my large nosed friend.

>It's opt-in so it's fine and it's based off chromium so it's also fine. You're a jooooo
Fucking hypocrite

Pozilla numale devs keep pushing their Activity Stream/Pocket botnet bullshit. Nightly doesn't have a traditional new tab page anymore, right? Next they'll probably forbid user{Chrome,Content}.css. Can't have the go.. users controlling the browser too much!

guess which fork will have this shit disabled by default

*winks*

Attached: serveimage.jpg (1024x768, 28K)

You can turn it off lmao

also will have the latest security patches disabled by default :^)

Sup water bro

Time to start using lynx guys

good thing firefox is dying
you'll be out of a job soon

Because version numbers totally mean the same thing across forks :^)

What's wrong with Chromium?

less ram :^)

Good thing brave signed a deal with a media company. You'll be a good source of profit soon
archive.fo/CYdFw

wew it's not an organization that supports antifa or soros, had me worried there for a second

>Special deals with media companies basically compromising the browser is okay if brave does it
A two faced hypocrite. Why am I not surprised.

i'll just wait until icecat hits the next ESR so ublock and umatrix work, then i'll switch to it instead. fucking mozilla.

>compromising the browser
So it's on par with Firefox now :^)

I've never been defending firefox once in here but I know you'll just respond with a meme because you don't have any real convictions and are fine with brave and it's "ad blocking" policies

>firefox shill still trying this desperately
don't you have a Mr Robot extension to uninstall?

>Defending a browser ran now by ad companies
>Compromising with them under any circumstance
Don't you have profits to be making for mr dow jones and that javascript creating fuck brendan Eich. He needs more good loyal sheep like you.

What browser do you use, hotshot? If you answer with Firefox or a fork then you're retarded.

What's wrong with waterfox

>I-I-I'm not a firefox shill
>I've just been spending all my time defending them for their shitty decisions
sure thing dude

Keep up the good work. Mr Dow Jones would be proud.

Means it's stored on your computer and never in their hands, nor will they ever try to sell it apparently. Half the retards in this thread haven't even read the articles.
Maintained by Google and pretty much does the same stuff. There's a reason why it was never included in Prism Break.

You know, I'm starting to think webdev was a mistake altogether. I mean, just look at what Firefox AddOns are written in:
JavaScript (fucking cancer),
HTML and CSS (write-only cluttered formats that embody the brilliant compromise of being equally unreadable to human and computer)
On top of that, why do webbrowsers even have any rights on modern machines? Why would you even want to give them the execution power they have? How come browser's are not sandboxed by default?
How come that every web technology is just a hotfix on top of another hotfix in order not to abolish the design decisions people made over 20 goddamn years ago now?

Attached: 1524958910192.png (660x582, 1.47M)

>How come that every web technology is just a hotfix on top of another hotfix in order not to abolish the design decisions people made over 20 goddamn years ago now?
it's not that people don't try, the trick is to get everyone to actually /use/ new things

>believing them
Brave's "private and anonymized user advertising data" is full of shit and so is this

I click the stories sometimes when they're interesting.
Would be nice to get more relevant ones more often.

I suspect Typescript is Microsoft's attempt at embracing, extending and extinguishing JavaScript.
If so, all power to them.

Complexity in general in regards to our infrastructure is a mistake I think.

I find that as technologies grow more complex the utility I get from that complexity shrinks.

>this thread
>arguing about which privacy invading, insecure web browser is the best

The difference between Firefox and Brave doing this is that Firefox is doing it with purely political intentions that in the end hurt free software.

I understand you don't want to change APIs and shit, or any means of communication. But a browser has at the very least free reign regarding the backends. The most distressing thing to me is that there is probably a practical reason because people are reasonable and would have done something if it were feasible. But my inner aut- I mean, idealist hopes that it's just that it just takes a new player to come along
I am afraid that this has the danger of falling into a C++ sort of trap; trying any compatibility with a predecessor is very, very dangerous if you don't dare to break backwards compatibility
It depends, really. To me it's a GNU vs. Bell Labs sort of thing; Increasing complexity is always a sacrifice of ensured stability and reliability, but scrutiny is only possible if you dictate which use cases are worth implementing and keep that number in check (e.g. proclaiming syntax highlighting to be a distraction and not worth implementing)

Attached: tumblr_inline_p1ojbc8VuV1sm2ujy_1280.png (671x732, 420K)

I'm not even sure these are real people. I think this is some AI generated conversation to leave you with two choices, both concluding in privacy invasion. All of these web browsers are dead to me.

Way to read your own fucking link.

>there are people dumb enough to still be using firefox after they started side loading ads disguised as add ons

FUCK YOU POCKET

>trying any compatibility with a predecessor is very, very dangerous if you don't dare to break backwards compatibility
Well I find this to be majorly the case with legacy systems computing business logic--not so for web-based front-ends.
You've surely noticed the trend of websites updating from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0. Websites composed of are almost nonexistent, only existing in the most ancient university webpages. I don't think those pages even use JavaScript.

Everyone else paid cash money to web devs to update their websites to be "hip and trendy"
I think you'll find the desire to please hipsters to be more powerful than the desire to have a working product.

>letting firefox update
wew

$2.00 in profit has been given to mr dow jones

Right after I switched back to Firefox after not using it for a long time. I've been getting spam emails. They're hilarious, but I didn't give this addr out to anyone other than the Mozilla sync service.

The fucking
>Wow!
as the message body

Attached: basedboi loans.png (1311x117, 11K)

I must admit that I to an extent can understand why people use JS. I mean, (basic) HTML from a design perspective is an absolute abortion when your goal is to make interactive and responsive web interfaces. I do not know how far this has been fixed in HTML's most recent versions but I can understand where they are coming from.

It's just that I don't get why you would make something like JS for this. It pleases noone, and in essence just serves as a buggy, fundamentally insecure "web-assembly" other, better languages or graphically cobbled together graphs are compiled to.

Attached: debugging legacy FORTRAN.png (377x393, 135K)

why do you want it hidden? afraid to see the truth?

>this level of fake news
Some newfag is going to believe you.

Have you ever been attracted to an user?

Attached: 1434268789454.png (300x300, 32K)

Those comments, supporting targeted ads with high upvotes. FUCKING KEK!

>interactive and responsive web interface
Well the problem is that REST APIs are inherently diametrically opposed to creating something interactive and responsive.
The notion of using stateless communications as the basic building block for the most stateful applications conceivable is clearly the most deceitful hack in known software history

To be fair, I'm on the nightly channel and I haven't seen anything like this.

no, i've seen it already

It's true but I'm sure it's coincidental.
>Some newfag is going to believe you.
I hope not.

Yes I have. He's a dear friend of mine despite the fact that we eventually broke up. Good guy, wouldn't miss out on him for the world.

What university did you get your BS in Shitposting from?

I was more pointing than asking, but that's interesting.

I know what you mean, we would not have these nigh-infinte seeming layers of "histories" and "databases" on our fucking machines without that fuckery.

Honestly not a bad thing, last time I checked all of the articles were tech-bro/bougie trash.

New Delhi poo in looversity

despite still needing some polish, i was surprised of how much this thing has progressed (and that it's not dead) since i tried it like 2 or 3 years ago and it feels like like a proper web browsing utitly now instead of Web 3.Sōy ..thing designed for normie mouthbraethers & for sneaking in as much (((personalised content))) as possible

the autistic beawer (or whatevr the fuck that brown animal is) browser is the future.

Attached: Otter_Browser_Logo.svg.png (512x512, 149K)

this, but unironically.

terminal based browsers are the last bastions of a not shit web experience. smaller attack vector, light weight, doesn't even load ads and js most of the time. Otter browser might come closest to not being dogshit out of modern browsers.

>Pozilla can't stop infecting itself
epic

What the FUCK browser do I use on Linux Jow Forumsros? Waterfox? IceCat? Brave? Full autism and go Basilisk?

Attached: 1513838554297.jpg (736x1094, 114K)

Now I get it, looking back at it I am surprised it didn't register that way initially. Cheers!

curl

I've been turning normies on to Brave and they seem to like it. I use Chrome with umatrix and like 10 other things.

>pic related.
There you go nigger.

Attached: file.png (999x29, 1K)

>using brave when they're the browser most full of shit

shoo shoo pozilla shill

>reinstalls on update

I do think that the whole Brave Payments shit is a better way of monetization which is necessary for them to survive - but I'm OK with a mostly functional web browser written by neckbeards that is FOSS and doesn't have any jewery.

Is otter the answer? Can I use ublock with it?

So what browser is uncucked? Pale Moon? Better yet should I just fuck off from the internet and exclusively use the library?

>Pale Moon
>deciding what addons you're allowed to use

>By default, Firefox will track which recommended sites you visit, and how often each recommendation is shown. This is part of the browser's broader tracking of technical and interaction data.
>Firefox users that don't like these recommendations can disable them entirely. It's also possible to retain the recommendations in general but disable specifically those stories that are sponsored

That's it, library it is, I will report back with a paper.jpg

ring-a-ding-ding

waterfox