Friendly reminder that if you're a person who respects their individual privacy and freedom, there is no reason to be using the products created by the botnet that is the Google company.
There is a plethora of options available for you to replace your Google apps that are lighter, faster and better in general, including respect for freedom and privacy.
SearX, DuckDuckGo, StartPage, Yandex (Soviet Botnet) Pale Moon, Waterfox, Brave, Vivaldi Self Host, cock.li, Proton Mail, Hotmail (Still Botnet) Yandex (Soviet Botnet) Syncthing, ownCloud, Nextcloud app store? F-Droid, Yalp for Play Store front end NewPipe for mobile, not signing in on desktop XMPP, Signal. Nextcloud, ownCloud, RadiCAL, NextCloud, keep it in your emails. RSS client, Librenews
The whole point of GNU Icecat is to subvert the telemetry/nonfree/privacy-violating things in Firefox while remaining as similar to the source as possible. The fact that you dismiss all Firefox forks as though they are just inherently comprimised without any grasp for what the point of the project is just shows your ignorance.
Also, the article you cite is totally misleading. Mozilla's "war" on fake news is easily one of the least concerning things Firefox has ever done. If you're making an infograph on secure browsers, you could have easily cited articles talking about Mozilla's telemetry and much more discernable, technical bullshit, not to mention pretty much everything gHacks as ever covered on Firefox. So, even on the needlessy paranoid front, your list still manages to suck more than it ever should.
Also, Uzbl is a webkit browser, not a text browser. So it just shows us that you clearly have never used all of the browsers you're shit talking here.
And you didn't even mention Dooble, a project that is incredibly vocal about making their browser both free and privacy-protecting.
So here you are, needlessly mentioning all these proprietary, blatantly malicious browsers that no one would have known about anyway, but you aren't even willing to acknowledge free projects that are actually making a concerted effort to do something good for the World. That would easily fit your criteria of what a good, safe browser could be.
I don't think it was ever proprietary, although I can understand how you were probably swayed by the rumors and misinformation--all of which probably stemmed from their business model, which, admittedly, reeks of the musk of venture capitalists and startup culture; but the software in itself is licensed under MPL, just like Firefox. But it's built on Blink.
I'm not trying to justify Brave, here. Just stating facts.
So you would rather use a proprietary browser than a free browser just because you don't agree with their agenda? And how does that make it more secure?
You're on Zig Forums , don't expect too much rational thinking .
this is bait
Bad infograph. You shouldn't recommend proprietary software, unless there is no FLOSS alternative at all, such as Youtube. I haven't used Youtube at all for 6 about years.
Very good post. The Google analytics hidden in the addons page is way worse than virtue signalling.
Why shouldn't we trust GNU/Icecat?
Most of this is good advice, except for:
Syncthing is a bit of a battery hog on android. Not unusably so, but something to be aware of. Also, Owncloud and Nextcloud's android clients do not allow the user to sync arbitrary folders, aside from photos in DCIM. You can manually upload/download files and folders outside of DCIM, but there's no way to do it automatically.
And speaking of Nextcloud... screw Nextcloud. They fucked over a lot of people on residential connections with their cute little stunt a few months back, all that "sending warning letters to ISP abuse deparments about home users running old versions" bullshit. archive.fo/3IZSX
Checked and agree on the fact that OP is a dumb illiterate faggot. It's quite clear to me that this post has been made by a mongrel Zig Forumsack following the degoogle meme and not from anyone near being a tech savvy.
>The fact that you dismiss all Firefox forks I don't understand where you got the idea that he was dissmising all firefox forks.
Every other Firefox fork has a huge, red asterisk next to it. Pale Moon, while you're technically true, isn't really a Firefox fork in the same way that a browser like Waterfox is, since it was forked from a waaay older version, and it's deviated so far from its source it's really become its own, independent project and thus not affected by the actions of Mozilla in the way other forks are.
I am not saying it cannot be trusted, OP's picture is saying that.
A fork is a fork regardless of whether it happened recently or many years ago. A fork is always an independent project because changes generally do not return upstream.
You're right. I think calling those other browsers forks was misleading, because those projects can and do in fact still have the capacity to exchange code between each other and are pretty much cross-compatible as a result. The main difference, really, for most of these browsers is mostly ideological, but they still rely heavily on upstream.
So they aren't really forks. They aren't even independent projects in the way that Pale Moon is. So there's a difference between those Firefox-based browsers and Pale Moon.
Here are a list of forks from Firefox: Waterfox Iceweasel Icecat Torbrowser Swiftfox Palemoon
It doesn't matter if these projects contribute nothing to Firefox, they are independent of Mozilla and of Firefox. What makes them forks is that they are all derived from Firefox.
Goddamnit, I'm trying to agree with you. You know what I mean.
is SeaMonkey a viable option? it's the only other browser than Firefox I've used that I actually like and doesn't feel broken/shitty, despite looking old.
If you like it, then use it. It works, so why not? You might want to consider using SeaMonkey for all of its potential, though, and not just as a browser.
What I mean is that SeaMonkey is also a viable eMail client, RSS reader, IRC client, etc. . Basically, it's a lot of things. If you aren't going to use those, then maybe it's not worth using for the space and resources it consumes.
YouTube is FLOSS since it requires no proprietary software to watch. They run proprietary software, but that's their loss. torsocks -i youtube-dl -o - | mpv -
You're wrong. I don't remember the details, but there was something regarding proprietary JS to watch/download from YouTube.
It just parsed it, not executed it, it's for the "protected videos".
Hey all, I am currently using Comodo Dragon as my main browser however It is ranked pretty low on tier list infographics such as the one in the OP, could anyone please explain to my -why- Comodo Dragon is bad? I have been using it for awhile now so I could be free from Google's Telemetry which is what Comodo advertises it as doing, so it seems to me like Comodo Dragon is chrome but without google connections and spying in it.
I wonder why. Spying is spying, no matter who's doing it. Comodo Dragon is even worse with it than Google and that's something to behold. Not to mention that they are lying and use Google Analytics anyways, spiced up with their own and their (((partners))) spyware. One of the worst browsers. Also obviously, it's proprietary, which should be a good enough reason by itself to stop using it.
Most free browsers are shit, Vivaldi works great although some bugs in Linux Funny since a decent amount of anons liked Opera before 12.8(?)cant remember, yet something similar comes out, but because they won't give out the full source its automatically shit. don't get me wrong, I prefer open source programs over proprietary and encourage people to do it, but saying no good proprietary programs exist is lying to themselves.
Nah. DRM, Pocket, and telemetry stuff is removed. Basically a straight FF clone, without the bits of botnet. Found right on the front page waterfoxproject.org/
nobody is saying all proprietary programs are bad, just that you can never actually know if they are BECAUSE they're proprietary.
actually a lot of people do say that
Who mad this graphic?
Whatcha slidin, chaim?
links/w3m are the real way to go.
They are very hard to use, I don't use them myself, but that's the only way. I mean, even alternatives like surf or uzbl use webkit, and webkit is a big clusterfuck, the same shit than firefox. In fact, a lot of little web browser are actually built upon webkit/firefox.
I must be the only one here, but I'm using right now conkeror, with the palemoon backend.
Using Waterfox from sometime...Im curious about Dooble and Qupzilla. How are these browsers?
How do I install Ft deep dark, or similar in Icecat. It is the only thing remaining for my setup. Can I rice Icecat any other way?
uzbl is a webkit wrapper, the fuck is that shit meme
This thread is informative, just because your AdWord salary is about to dry up doesn't give you a right to be salty. Stay mad.
I use youtube with adblock. And chromium. I'm not giving up either. Google isn't getting anything out of me either way.
I ended up editing the .xpi to make it compatible with icecat.
I've switched to using RSS + youtube-dl to keep track of my subscriptions and their videos without having to use anything from Google aside from their videos themselves.
Anyone have any better recommendations for an online RSS reader that I can log into and keep in sync with all my stuff? I'm using Feedly right now but if I want more than 100 sources I need to pay.
What do I do, Zig Forums? I have no less than FOUR fucking browsers on my laptop, but I see no way to consolidate Used for IPFS compatibility, especially with that IPFS addon that's really nice. General web browsing. A lot of websites required for my university fuck up with all of my autism extensions sometimes, so I use it for that. For when no other browsers will work but I am required to view a page for school (non YouTube videos such as recorded lectures will sometimes require this)
It pisses me off. I just want to have ONE browser. Why is that so hard?
I can't seem to find legit info on Dooble. The sourceforge website and subsequent links throw all sorts of red flags and I can't seem to find a readme or release notes the link for the most recent release notes 404s. Would you mind sharing a link with more information on the browser?
Pale moon blocked the necessary adnauseum extension, it clicks on ads before you block them, fucking up Googles revenue and their botnet. Pale moon blocked it, avoid it.
Eich got fired from mozzila for donating to an anti gay marriage organization. He literally got fucked by the Jewish establishment.
Just posted this in the tech questions thread as well:
Can someone tell me how to add Yandex as a search engine in Firefox? I can't seem to find an add on that works.
Wow I wish I had found your post before I made my own shitty list. Its based on a pretty basic surface research and influenced by political view, but people kept asking on other boards after this topic came up and nobody answered them, so I wanted to give them a basic direction. I am still debating if I shouldn't just put the Multi Engine Weirdness Tier in the Other Proprietary Botnet Tier, but I don't have enough information about them.
Dooble, uzbl, surf use webkit. Conkeror can be used with palemoon. QupZilla is based on qtwebengine, based no webkit. luakit based on webkit. Netsurf actually have its own layout engine. Midori is based on webkit. Otter based on webkit. K-melon based on gecko. konkeror based on gecko. kekonq based on qtwebengine (webkit).
Is webkite even trustable...
No, actually, it is based on KHTML, which was then forked to become Webkit iirc.
You're right, my bad.
Holy fuck I hate these fucking faggot screaming "autism!" at people trying to find a fucking solution. What are you even doing on 8ch, that's pretty "autistic" if you definition of autistic means mainstream and propaganda accepted.
Nah I just had fun looking at everything the browser market had to offer and put it in a basic list, if I wanted autism I would have written a short description and history of every single browser. And I learned some stuff, for example Opera is now owned by the same Chinese who make the 360 Security Browser.
Qtwebengine is based on blink, not webkit. And qutebrowser supports both Qtwebengine and Qtwebkit.
QtWebEngine is based on Chromium, not just Blink (it also uses e.g. Chromium's network stack, V8, etc.). Also, Otter Browser can also use QtWebEngine instead of QtWebKit, though many features aren't supported and the dev kind of abandoned QtWebEngine.
Why is qutebrowser in "Deeply Goncerned Tier", but other comparable projects like Otter/Qupzilla/Dooble/... (based on QtWebKit/QtWebEngine too, mostly one single developer too) are not?
Wait for fiber
Vivaldi is based off Blink, not Chromium. Chromium is its own subset of cancer.
I use Vivaldi, although I am on Win7 with most of my shit replaced by FLOSS alternatives. (don't blame me for not running Leenux, blame my hardware)
In all these engines, what is trustable? qtwebkit, qtwebengine (replacement of qtwebkit), webkit (apple), gecko (mozilla), webkitgtk, blink (google), goanna (palemoon's fork) etc...
Is it the soft around these engine that are in cause or are these engines the problem? I mean, open source doesn't mean libre.
Actually, almost all of the time, it does. There are very few software licenses that are one but not the other. The difference is almost entirely one of philosophy.
If the soft send information to google, it still open source... So no, it doesn't mean shit.
It would still be free software too. Free software just means it follows the four freedoms. Which means that you can find the phoning home in the source code, for example. Literally, free software and open source are almost exactly the same thing: opensource.org/faq#free-software I prefer the term free software because, as the FSF says, "open" is a weaker statement than "free."
Then let's not talk about free software, but software that don't sell my ass. But the question remain the same; are these engines trustable? Is webkit trustable when you know that it's apple whose dev it?
From what I found its made by a swiss guy as a side project and he ran a kikestarter to finance it. Considering the history of kikestarter projects concern is justified.
You have a point I will change that in future lists, but still the people behind it already drove their previous browser against the wall.
Short answer to a complex question: no Hence why it is important to find projects by trustable people that act as lookout for anything fishy and work as a canary in the coalmine for you. Also the further away a fork evolves from the original the more resistant it becomes against introductions of new malicious shit by these companies.
He's very dedicated to it. He did two crowdfunding campaigns (in two years) so he'd be able to work full-time on it in the summer, because he needs to eat and pay rent. The development all happens out in the open, so the results of the campaigns are easily verifiable (especially the first one because that's completely over). Read about it in the development blog, for example: blog.qutebrowser.org/ I don't think any of the standard issues with crowdfunding campaigns apply here. He delivered and it's all very visible.
The developer posts here sometimes, and he cares about privacy and security. qutebrowser is completely free of anti-features, and there's no indication that will change. I can vouch for qutebrowser. It probably belongs in your Minimalist Tier.
I put tails on a USB drive just like you neckbeards said, but every time I try to connect to my wifi with it, it disconnects itself, and every other computer on my network until I turn off wifi in Tails. The same computer works fine if I connect in Windows 7.
neither are trustable. they literally all have critical vulns disclosed every week
neither are trustable. they literally all have critical vulns disclosed every week
Well, then, what's your suggestion? Something constructive would be nice.
Seconding on more Dooble info. I haven't really seen much about it. Is there a link you can share on it?
Those crowdfundings were for some big features, with >3 years of maintaince and development outside of crowdfundings - while e.g. uzbl just was dead for months (but is finally somewhat active in its 'next' branch again)
Is it even possible to install Icecat on windows? As of late I'm hopping between browsers trying to find a suitable one to stay into but with all these threads I'm starting to get vertigo, everyone recommends everything while saying everything else sucks. Not that I complain, it's better to have this than "You need to try our Brand™ Of™ Browser™ That™ Everyone™ Loves™!™" in an Orwellian sort of way.
I don't know why mod don't automatically ban every windows user from here. It needs to be some kind of user-agent autoban or something. Why in the hell do you want to install icecat if in the first place, you're on fucking windows? Don't you understand how it doesn't make the slighest sense? Stop shitting on threads. I think I should just ignore such fucktard. I'm falling for the bait.
Back to this thread, the question remain the same: In all these engines, what is trustable? qtwebkit, qtwebengine (replacement of qtwebkit), webkit (apple), gecko (mozilla), webkitgtk, blink (google), goanna (palemoon's fork) etc...
It doesn't matter what browser you use, it matters how it interacts with the internet.
Don't be a memetard.
Plenty of people on GNU/Linux use a Windows user agent in order to better blend in to the crowd, myself included.
Tell people to use Firefox Focus on Android if you want to fuck over Jewgle.
FFF blocks ads automatically.
what's so bad about w3m?
Well at least you put brave in the right catagory. People have seemed to be overly supportive of it lately.
Absolutly nothing, don't listen when some says "autism" or "out of society" and stuff. It's people who can't handle these tools that make these comments. It's hard to use text browser today, especially when you're a millenium, and only know about internet 2.0. But if you're serious, I think that links, w3m etc.. are the way to go.
I know this has kind of turned into a browser thread (as tends to pop up around here) but I would like to ask after email. Does anyone know anything about Kolab? Apparently they run entirely free software and are hosted in Switzerland. Things aren't entirely encrypted by default like Protonmail, but this does mean you can use your own email client. I'm not sure what to make of them and am wondering if anybody has had any experience with their service.
How do I do this? Also, wasn't cock.li compromised?
cock.li hosting has been moved to Romania iirc, which is where VC himself is. It was seized when he was hosting in Germany, because, you know, Germoney. As far as I know, things are good now, though you should always be encrypting your email anyway. As far as self hosting, I believe mail in a box is probably the easiest solution to set up, if you know what you're doing.
Because you learn step by step.
Yeah how do you self-host your email?
See Mail in a Box has a tutorial video I believe.
Anyone? Also, sometimes the pages I load give a load error, althought it goes normal when restarting/going back. And a minor thing but that grinds my gears is that Qupzilla doesnt keep the website zoom I give to a site, it always go back to the default level of zoom. I dont want to always read things too small! Could someone help me, please?
You can host your own email server?
Can mode ban people changing subject? It's a thread about Web browser, about about emails. There is another one about emails.
We were talking about engines to trust. And what about text browser security.
Is anyone here using text browsers like links, w3m? Are they that secure to use? The ultimate solution? Is webkit, developed by Apple trustable, and so all the little browser built on it?