Vivaldi looks so stable and rock solid, uses Blink engine, although the title is a clickbait. About the history feature, if a website is important i will bookmark it, i want history only for that session, not save it for future search, again that's my opinion. However the features like tab muting, taking notes are very good and that's what the user needs. Wish it would have been Open Source. I prefer Vivaldi over IE. But Firefox MasterRace!
Vivaldi makes History
21–30 of 41 posts
Re: Vivaldi makes History
#22While I rarely looked at the code behind a browser (mostly webkit, to debug some weird stuff with capybara-webkit), it is highly uncomfortable to me to use a non-free browser... Does it track my behavior, do they sell that information - I don't have time to mess around with Wireshark and see what it does; On the "history" upgrade idea - that's a really cool one; It's quite often that I'm looking for that page I acces…
Your argument about the closed source is weak. Messing around with Wireshark is probably quicker than reading thousands of locs. I understand the value of open source. But I'm still not sure if it matters. A lot of people think that open source software does not track personal data. But how do they know? Have they read all the code? Do they even understand all code? It's much easier to run Wireshark to check what the…
I don't believe wireshark will tell you that much since everything is encrypted with forward secrecy nowadays. So the browser would need to be able to output negotiated keys for data tracking connections. That seems unlikely, especially if what's being tracked is a bit shady.
Re: Vivaldi makes History
#23While I rarely looked at the code behind a browser (mostly webkit, to debug some weird stuff with capybara-webkit), it is highly uncomfortable to me to use a non-free browser... Does it track my behavior, do they sell that information - I don't have time to mess around with Wireshark and see what it does; On the "history" upgrade idea - that's a really cool one; It's quite often that I'm looking for that page I acces…
Your argument about the closed source is weak. Messing around with Wireshark is probably quicker than reading thousands of locs. I understand the value of open source. But I'm still not sure if it matters. A lot of people think that open source software does not track personal data. But how do they know? Have they read all the code? Do they even understand all code? It's much easier to run Wireshark to check what the…
Open-source doesn't just mean that you can view the source code. It also means that anyone can take the source code, make changes to it and distribute their new version.
This means that if an open-source project does nefarious things, there's a good chance that a fork will come along and that people will start using that fork instead. So, you yourself don't have to read every single line of code for it to be relatively certain that an open-source project does not do bad things.
There are of course exceptions to this. For example there are a lot of things that a lot of people are not fond of with Chromium. There are forks which try to address this (for example [0]), but Google has so much development workforce behind Chromium that such a fork has a hard time keeping up with merging security patches and updates in general.
But even in that case, open-source offers protection without you reading every line of code. Because there's people out there who earn their daily bread by uncovering these sort of things: Journalists.
Due to the source code being available, they have definitive proof and can slap these kind of stories on the front page. I mean, heck, Heart Bleed came on national TV in my country. If that vulnerability had been in closed-source software, they could have only ever reported about rumors.
Re: Vivaldi makes History
#24While I rarely looked at the code behind a browser (mostly webkit, to debug some weird stuff with capybara-webkit), it is highly uncomfortable to me to use a non-free browser... Does it track my behavior, do they sell that information - I don't have time to mess around with Wireshark and see what it does; On the "history" upgrade idea - that's a really cool one; It's quite often that I'm looking for that page I acces…
Vivaldi is Open Source, they just doesn't have github repo and they aren't "crowd-based open source" (I don't know how to call it). https://vivaldi.com/source
Open-source means more than just allowing others to view the source code: https://opensource.org/osd
Besides that, as far as I remember that link only discloses their changes to Chromium, not everything that's part of Vivaldi. From what I've heard, the rest can apparently be extracted from the Vivaldi binary, but I have yet to see a demonstration of someone actually compiling Vivaldi from that.
Re: Vivaldi makes History
#25What happens tomorrow, if Vivaldi becomes history? Do we own this data? How is it stored? Where is it located? Can we access this with any other tool? I know I'm begging for down-votes but I simply cannot understand how people can commit something as personal as web browsing to a closed source solution.
You'd be surprised to know Chrome synchronises your history to their browsers, and that part is closed source.
Re: Vivaldi makes History
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vivaldi is Open Source, they just doesn't have github repo and they aren't "crowd-based open source" (I don't know how to call it). https://vivaldi.com/source
Open-source means more than just allowing others to view the source code: https://opensource.org/osd Besides that, as far as I remember that link only discloses their changes to Chromium, not everything that's part of Vivaldi. From what I've heard, the rest can apparently be extracted from the Vivaldi binary, but I have yet to see a demonstration of someone actually compiling Vivaldi from that.
This repo implies the Vivaldi source can be compiled:
Re: Vivaldi makes History
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where is your claim that vivaldi is close source coming from? https://vivaldi.com/source/ // later edit below Excuse me but I am just reading on this and it seems its real open source it that sense. I did not even know this, so thank you for this. This makes Vivaldi a total no go for me. https://vivaldi.net/userblogs/entry/a-few-words-about-open-s... It has in fact a proprietary license: "18 November 2016. "Subject t…
The license in the LICENSE file looks like BSD 2.0. The proprietary license you mention is only in the Windows installer (according a quick grep) ... but it's still legally murky in my uneducated opinion. Anyway, license notwithstanding, they do not publish the latest source. The download page has version 1.8, whose source is not available for download. There is also no repository and so no public history of changes…
CEO Quote from the above link.
"In addition, all of our UI code (included in normal packages) is written in plain, readable text. This means that all parts of Vivaldi are full audit-able and open from that perspective." So in other words. No that code is NOT open source. And he can stuck his "open from that perspective." BS up his ass. I am not gonna use stuff from people who do crap like this.
AFAIK the Wikipedia page for Vivaldi says its proprietary for a reason. And I don't think that reason is because of a windows installer. They release their code they build on top of chromium as open source BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO. But they build looks like they build other stuff that is "open" but not open source. At least this is what I have got from my quick look at it. This seems to follow a Opera and Chrome tradition. Even Chrome is not open source. Its 99% Chromium +1% Google crap on top of it. I am very opposed to this kind of stuff and for Opera and Vivaldi thats not just 1%.
Happy to get corrected of better educated on this.
Re: Vivaldi makes History
#28Syncing feature is still missing while a lot of things are being introduced, which is hard to tolerate.
Re: Vivaldi makes History
#29Would prefer it, if it was simply a plugin.
Re: Vivaldi makes History
#30Wouldn't it be great if the browser could be configured to simply sync this information to a calendar app of your choosing?
This way, be it local or an online service like Google Calendar, the data would be under your control and would make sense across computers, and could be viewed in relation to other time-based data.
i.e. if your tweets also ended up in a calendar you could see the tweets that led to a browse, that led to a bookmark, that led to a new tweet. You could later on make sense of your own activities.
If I were at Google, this is what I'd want to work on: How to bring together data to make it useful for the user, rather than just useful as part of a profile for advertisers. History is a lot less scary when it provides the user with the bulk of the value.