251–260 of 326 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use the woolyss binaries on purpose because they have Chrome Sync support on desktop (which I use for recent tabs and bookmarks). On mobile, no Chrome Sync without the official builds, so I cede all my privacy there. :'(
I use Firefox on mobile and desktop because it is the only browser which lets you to run your own sync server: https://jeena.net/firefox-sync-15
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was for me as well, but lately I have been experiencing incredible slow-downs in Firefox. I thought it must be my imagination until I tried other browsers and the difference was like between day and night. Firefox is just too slow, even with their new engine.
Funnily enough I noticed this just the other day. On https://browserbench.org/Speedometer2.0/ (usual benchmark caveats apply) Chrome scored 68.7 and FF scored 50. That was on Fedora 28 on a ThinkPad (i7-7700HQ), I was surprised at the delta between the two tbh.
If you're using "Ungoogled" Chromium, you're still contributing to Chrome's monopoly and you're still helping Google's dominance of the web. Chromium may be open source, but its development is controlled by Google. Unless you have Google-like resources available, you won't be able to create a meaningful fork that your less technically savvy users can benefit from. "Ungoogled" Chromium is a trap. Use another browser.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but it doesn't change the fact that starving content producers of micro ad revenue goes against their wishes which in most cases deprives them of their sole revenue source Choice of revenue source is, well, a choice. It's not like we're talking about some poor third-world kids, for whom the only choice is between starvation and building ad-powered content farms. It's all just people who asked themselves, "how can I…
Took a while but we got to "work for free for visibility"
It would be great if Debian could make the Chromium in their repos a de-googled version and keep it up to date. I have no idea how the Debian project is financed. So I don't know if it is possible for them to assign resources to it. But Debian has a strong history of being trustworthy. So a userfriendly browser maintained by them would be nice.
Debian gets sponsored by various ways but the money isn't used directly for developers nor their time. It is volunteer based project and money is usually used for hardware, sprints, conferences, outreachy etc. That said Debian does take it seriously when it comes to privacy and security so you can always report bugs on such. Do note that Debian's Chromium builds have always disabled the infamous "mic always on" optio…
it should be much easier to contribute to Debian now
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are humans on the other side producing that content, they have as much right for being compensated for their efforts as we do. They have a right to ask for compensation, and a right to require it. They have no right to be compensated, if they choose to give away the content for free. That would be saying they have a right to force people to be generous. Whining about ad-blockers is simply being manipulative,…
> Whining about ad-blockers is simply being manipulative, it's trying to guilt-trip people into abandoning their self interest for free. Your attestation usage of "manipulative" is attempting to manipulate in itself. Like I said everyone is technically free to do what they want, but it doesn't change the fact that starving content producers of micro ad revenue goes against their wishes which in most cases deprives th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about meticulously reviewing every commit for every project that I use, obviously nobody has time for that. For me the most important part is being able to fork the project if you want to add features or are unhappy with the way the original project is going, you don't merely have to beg the maintainers to add a certain feature, you can do it yourself. And perhaps more importantly I'm not screwed if, for one…
Also, simply making the source-code visible to all, helps keeps the honest guys honest. That's true even if the licence isn't truly Free and Open Source. No-one dares to commit spyware to GitHub.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatever monetization strategy Websites choose to fund their content is up to them. If ads are the best way to support free content then that should be their choice.
Sure. And it’s my choice to block them. Brave actually offers a way to pay for content, if I understand it correctly.
And that's great if a large volume of your visitors are using Brave, but that's certainly not the case for us. Granted, this is anecdata, but I suspect that it holds true for many other sites.
(On a personal note, I'm afraid I object to Brave simply on the basis of its gratingly pretentious name: I've known plenty of people who are brave, whether it's because of things they've done, or because of terrible suffering they've endured, but I'm afraid I see nothing about that web browser to justify the name.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funnily enough I noticed this just the other day. On https://browserbench.org/Speedometer2.0/ (usual benchmark caveats apply) Chrome scored 68.7 and FF scored 50. That was on Fedora 28 on a ThinkPad (i7-7700HQ), I was surprised at the delta between the two tbh.
On Safari 12, my 2015 13" rMBP scores 55, my iPhone X 89, and the new iPhone XS 125 !? Faster than the new iMac Pro ( https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1043277162676072449 )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but it doesn't change the fact that starving content producers of micro ad revenue goes against their wishes which in most cases deprives them of their sole revenue source Choice of revenue source is, well, a choice. It's not like we're talking about some poor third-world kids, for whom the only choice is between starvation and building ad-powered content farms. It's all just people who asked themselves, "how can I…
Took a while but we got to "work for free for visibility"