Why haven't you switched yet Jow Forums?

>There is now a complete backup of all classic add-ons from the Mozilla Add-On Store, mirrored on the Waterfox CDN. You can use the Classic add-on Archive add-on to view the catalogue. This will be integrated into the next Waterfox version.
>Waterfox now has a unique identifier in its user agent, but in a way that shouldn't confuse sniffers (...)

blog.waterfoxproject.org/waterfox-56.2.3-release-download

Attached: the GOAT browser.jpg (412x378, 30K)

Other urls found in this thread:

mozilla.invisionapp.com/share/VSMVD99JK6D#/screens/301705296
getpocket.com/privacy
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I'm using it but the memory leak is annoying.

Why do they keep working on this project?

I could ask the same question of the SJW nuZilla devs and their frankenstein-tier aberration

How is Waterfox any less SJW than Firefox? It uses the same code base, only different compile-time flags.

cause im on macOS, and firefox runs like shit. ungoogled chromium is extremely lightweight, fast and has everything im looking for in an everyday browser

>ungoogled chromium

that's like trying to make a cow out of a hamburger. no wonder you use macos

that is an absolutely retarded analogy. no wonder youre a poor, virgin, fat aspie.

Why should I switch to Waterfox. I'm genuinely curious.
What does it offer over FF, when I'm not interested in old addons?

based

Attached: ewvfc.png (1052x713, 125K)

Not sending your personal information to Mozilla and not receiving a/b testing baked into the program

you can't "ungoogle" chromium you dumb nigger.

Because Chrome is better.

Said no one

You are literally replying to a post of someone saying it. You dumb fucking nigger.

>if you take the telemetry and phone-home features out of Chromium, it can't render webpages
Imagine being this stupid.

man, i'm trying to help you.

What Waterfox offers me over Seamonkey?

because it sucks ass

because I use user.js on Firefox.

Not completely maybe. There's probably something hard coded in it that can't be taken out without bricking the whole browser but they do try to ungoogled whatever they could.

You made a pretty wild assertion and provided no evidence. The source code is publicly available. If you have found parts of it that still provide a way for Google to gather user data, then by all means post it. Otherwise, your claim is empty.

You are, literally, using "literally" in a literally wrong way.
You are literally retarded, actually basically...

enjoy about:config entries changing names every now and then.

>switched
no, there's no possibility of running a single browser in 2018. gotta have 2 or 3.

I have.
Now tell me what addons are essential

Waterfox and Brave here

Is this a known bug aniki?
Moving fast to context menu's button triggers it

Attached: output.webm (1920x1080, 386K)

doesnt happen for me, are you sure your mouse isn't fucked?

That doesn't happen often and good thing there's people that keep up with that stuff so I don't have to lol

Why not use the Iridium?

Attached: Iridium-hotpic.png (375x375, 8K)

Does it happen only on Mac or...?

Chrome a shit, non-quantum-firefox also a shit but very easily configured to non-shit.

Fuck, it's probably intended macos behavior, you can click on things while holding right mouse button, it actually happens everywhere, it's just that firefox places back button very close to where cursor location is and unintended clicks happen

Ungoogled includes patches from Iridium and many more but Iridium is ok if you don't mind being behind security updates.

I deleted my legacy extensions and hardly miss them anymore, so whatever.

>using a fork of Firefox without security patches
>using a fork of Firefox that enables deprecated and unmaintained features that will introduce new bugs and exploits
>using an old addon system in which addons have full network access, can read and write anywhere in the drive and can execute arbitrary programs and scripts
>using old, unmaintained addons that will contain exploits and/or introduce a bunch of bugs and exploits to the browser
I seriously hope you guys don't do this. One thing is being a paranoid contrarian, a different one is being so paranoid and contrarian that you make non-rational decisions just to go against what's popular.

Attached: 1534742320904.gif (500x320, 1.95M)

is Ungoogled Chromium to be trusted at all? It gets shilled to fuck here occasionally and It's actually why I haven't went anywhere near it yet

>deprecated features
Not even close.
>having to trust addons
yes
>unmaintained addons will contain/introduce exploits
If you use the wrong ones, sure. Same goes for mozilla's secretly adding their own addons to the browser.
>previously stable addons suddenly become unstable and malware
No.

I mean, the source code for the patches is available for you to see. Kinda pointless to ask random person on Jow Forums whether it can be trusted or not. At the end of the day, it's all up to individuals.

>Not even close
NPAPI plugins and XUL addons are deprecated features.
>>unmaintained addons will contain/introduce exploits
>If you use the wrong ones, sure. Same goes for mozilla's secretly adding their own addons to the browser.
Except not, because every new addon works inside a sandbox. XUL addons don't and they can modify the browser's behaviour.
One of the reasons Mozilla decides to ditch XUL entirely is because the addons depend on the browser. Every new feature, every new change to the browser can and will eventually either break XUL addons, or introduce unintended behaviour. This is also why XUL addons usually were compatible with only a handful of Firefox versions.
>>previously stable addons suddenly become unstable and malware
>No.
Yes they do. They are stable for Firefox 57, but in Firefox 63 (where, for instance, the browser's GUI runs inside it's own process separated from tabs) it will undoubtedly break stuff.

The features are more necessary than the browser code that contains them. Mozilla deprecated their current version browser. A locked stable-version fork is never going to see any of your fictional instabilities, malwares, or bugs.

Does -webkit-font-smoothing: none; work? I just want some nice pointy aliased fonts on GUI, but fewer things continue to allow that.

>using a fork of Firefox without security patches
I received an update yesterday with security patches.

And who is gonna maintain this magical browser that supports XUL addons perfectly, has timely security patches and also is compatible with the latest JS and HTML5 features?

see

I like Firefox with the config by ghacks.net

Firefox is much better once configured.

I'm not poor

Then you clearly have no idea what Waterfox is or does.

What are these settings?

I only use Chrome when I need to translate a website, because I have not been able to translate an efficient translator in other browsers.

Because firefox quantum is good and all of my extensions were ported or replaced by something new.

All of which are optional.

No one cares about shitty Firefox forks.

because I'm on superior airfox

They're optional til they decide it's non-optional.

Attached: pocket-save.76216e71bd46.png (896x598, 22K)

extensions.pocket.enabled = false

I'm concerned too but there are some limits on how far Mozilla can take the telemetry stuff. If they tried to bake it in and make it non-optional you'd get distros carrying patches to disable it. (Debian, especially, is willing to do that)

Pocket is now Mozilla-owned and abides the Mozilla privacy policy. And don't forget the GDPR.

Firefox is the only browser with an user-friendly Content Blocking feature.

mozilla.invisionapp.com/share/VSMVD99JK6D#/screens/301705296

*abides by

Oh wait, my bad. It still has its own policy: getpocket.com/privacy

It's spyware

No.

still using pale moon mostly because I'm too attached to the old interface before australis

how wrong is this

Attached: 1523773746836.jpg (720x493, 49K)

Australis is not the Firefox UI anymore, Photon is.

>behind
like months behind, not acceptable imo