311–320 of 382 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is any tracking Brave does is 100% local on your device, which eliminates any potential privacy issues that may exist with other advertising models.
yeah and apparently sending stuff to google IPs. So... not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me, Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox was a noticeable step up from IE, and Chrome was a noticeable step up from Firefox. Chrome did especially well relative to Firefox when I had a lot of tabs, and for JS-heavy sites. I bounced back and forth several times: * I tried it for a month in January 2010, and went back to Firefox because Chrome was slower and less stable: https://www.jefftk.com/p/google-chrome * I tried it for…
Try switching once more, and turn on Webrender this time - it's still beta, but I had no issues and it made my FF Chrome-fast.
* I trust Chrome more than Firefox on security
* I'm used to Chrome's debugging tools, and would need to learn Firefox's
* I use the Chrome password manager, and it would be annoying to switch
If Firefox were enough better I would still switch, but at this point my understanding is it's more like "Firefox is no longer slower than Chrome" not "Firefox is a step up from Chrome in the way Chrome once was from Firefox".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This same argument is true of nearly all companies, including "not for profit." For instance the chair at Mozilla/FireFox pays himself $1.1 million a year, the treasurer $1 million. [1] And those numbers are probably higher now. That's from 2016, the most recent published data on their site. Since 2013 [2] their CEO has increased his yearly compensation by more than $300k, and the treasurer increased his pay by more…
And ? The Linux foundation heads have a similar salary range, like many other foundations and it is not an issue. "Not for profit" means with a public stated goal, means that your share holder will not suddenly overcome your company strategy and make you sell all your client data, or make you sell bananas, because "it's more profitable on short term". That is not an hypothetical scenario, many IT companies already fe…
Other recent bad decisions from them would include the decision to forcefully install a Mr. Robot related promo into the browser. And now most recently they plan to transition to a freemium model for FireFox where the regular FireFox will be free but "premium" features will now require a monthly fee. If you find these behaviors to those of a company who put mission ahead of profit, then we will have to simply agree to disagree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've had quite the opposite experience there. I eventually settled on Brave because of my browsing habits. In particular I tend to have several windows of a browser open with dozens of tabs a piece and tend to rarely reboot my machine. Capping all this off is that I enjoy playing chess, which relies on millisecond responsivity. This [1] is a screen cap of the current performance usage of Brave. It's completely neglig…
That may be a Firefox on Windows issue (not that it helps you in this case). I regularly have ~1000 tabs open in Firefox on Linux with no issues (related to tabs and performance, anyway). The only related issue for me recently was a failure to restore a session after Firefox forced a restart for an update. That's the behavior that chases me back to Brave on other systems (where it's not as easy to `tabs.sh > current_…
Brave in Tor with YouTube seems to track you and show you recommended videos across sessions. Probably some browser fingerprinting. But always found that weird considering it portrays itself as privacy-focused.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox makes money by its search deal with Google, in other words: by funneling their users towards Google. This pretty much also boils down to "making money by showing you ads". Google's search ads, to be precise. Now you can say: "But I can turn this off", but then you'd also turn off their source of revenue. Brave's stated goal is to establish an alternative ad-based business model that's long-term viable without…
Firefox is persuing other revenue sources as well, such as a paid premium browser. My last hope against the advertising economy is this model taking off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox is persuing other revenue sources as well, such as a paid premium browser. My last hope against the advertising economy is this model taking off.
Same, I intend to pay for their premium browser. I've been using Firefox for years. Chrome couldn't get me to shift over. I only use Chrome when testing front-end code and I don't do front-end development anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering most of their jobs are in mountain view, a very expensive col and developer salary area, they should consider moving somewhere more economical if they expect to live on handouts. Why should we have to support their over priced office space?
Because they're still doing important work, and deserve to have nice things? Why does working at a non profit mean that you should have a bad quality of life? You don't have to support them, but if their product provides value to you, it's worth considering
If SV doesn't trigger that for you, think about, say, a non-profit headquartered in Monaco, that asks for donations so that its employees can have a nice home and QoL in Monaco with salaries several multiples of your own for comparable work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This same argument is true of nearly all companies, including "not for profit." For instance the chair at Mozilla/FireFox pays himself $1.1 million a year, the treasurer $1 million. [1] And those numbers are probably higher now. That's from 2016, the most recent published data on their site. Since 2013 [2] their CEO has increased his yearly compensation by more than $300k, and the treasurer increased his pay by more…
On the flip side, what people seem to want “not for profit” to mean is “employees work for below market rate for some reason”. I don't get it. I would expect employees at a non-profit to be compensated along the same lines as those at a for-profit. It's a constant easy story for shitty journalism in the UK – "oh my god this head of a charity makes far less than the head of an equivalently–sized private company! what…
This is of course fallacious. But the reason for this is that not-for-profit and for-profit companies operate in mostly the same way. This is something that most people do not understand. This is precisely what I was aiming to point out to the person who initially said 'why would you ever contribute your time for free to a for-profit?' It's an intuitive, but incorrect understanding of the differences between the sort of a companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm currently using Firefox on all devices as my primary browser, but there is a single feature that I've gotten used to in Chrom* browsers on mobile - 'pull down to refresh' - that looks indispensable to me, and I'm planning to move to Brave on mobile just because of that (already replaced Chrome with Brave on Desktop as my secondary browser). Yes, there are add-ons to do that on mobile too, but they are all inconsi…
Try Kiwi Browser for Android. Its a Chromium-based browser with built-in ad-block. If you want, you can even install uBlock Origin or any other extensions as it natively supports extensions.