Even if you have no issue with Google, this is still a good idea to encourage competition. Honestly, Chrome is not as good as it used to be anyway. For me, Google Maps and Waze are the hardest things to kick. And YouTube...
OpenStreetMap had solid data, but my periodic attempts at finding a good app haven't been successful.
No to Chrome
61–70 of 319 posts
Re: No to Chrome
#62Re: No to Chrome
#63I’m quite satisfied with my move away from google products. Moved from gmail to protonmail. Chrome to firefox and search to ddg. Ddg isn’t perfect though and I find myself using !g tag more often than I’d like.
Try !s instead -- same results as google (apparently) but via startpage which supposedly doesn't track.. I don't really understand how startpage is able to operate such a service, I assume it's maybe because if google started trying to stop them it would be rather hypocritical?
Re: No to Chrome
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenStreetMap had solid data, but my periodic attempts at finding a good app haven't been successful.
Have you tried OSMand ( https://osmand.net/ ). It is not very pretty, but I definitly love the "offline" feature and bicycle maps.
Re: No to Chrome
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plus,[0]Brave is going to block [1]CNAME Cloaking first-party trackers, AFAIK no other browser, not[2]add-on, has or plan to have such blocking capabilities. [0] https://imgur.com/a/4DdMh7X [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21604825 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21582698
It also sells your eyeballs by allowing certain adds after they've been paid. It's basically racketeering. If you're keen on using chromium with manifest v2 add-ons, Vivaldi and Microsoft edge are both options to keep in mind.
Edge hasn't been released yet.
Vivaldi UI is a buggy and slow mess (I invite you to try it yourself)
Re: No to Chrome
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
How?
They scrape top results and show it directly in a box (think wikipedia, imdb, lyric engines etc.) thus discouraging users from actually clicking the link. Personally, I think it’s nice to have the content instantly available and not having to go to a website for it but I can see how for content producers this means wrapping their websites and making money out of their content.
Re: No to Chrome
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then go with Brave. They stripped out the Google bits, and they won't remove support for the current uBlock Origin ad blocker.
Plus,[0]Brave is going to block [1]CNAME Cloaking first-party trackers, AFAIK no other browser, not[2]add-on, has or plan to have such blocking capabilities. [0] https://imgur.com/a/4DdMh7X [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21604825 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21582698
Re: No to Chrome
#68Even if you have no issue with Google, this is still a good idea to encourage competition. Honestly, Chrome is not as good as it used to be anyway. For me, Google Maps and Waze are the hardest things to kick. And YouTube...
Try blocking all images on Youtube so you won't see thumbnails. It helps a ton.