171–180 of 210 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Internet Explorer maybe, but Chrome? I don't think "Chrome" screams web browser to me. "Safari" seems more trivial than Chrome.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=browser%20ch...
But "chrome" to mean user interface is pretty far down the list of definitions for chrome, and even the most generous interpretation is similar to GUI/UI/UX and that doesn't exactly say "web browser".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've disliked Brave from the beginning. Initially because of the pretentious - and frankly appropriated - name, but now for the much more substantive reasons you've cited. Seriously, if you want a browser that gives you control over your data and privacy, use Firefox. It doesn't do any of this shady nonsense.
How can I get these two features on Firefox: 1. Block scripts on certain domains 2. Block ads & tracking (including on Android) Those are my favorite Brave features. How do I get them on Firefox?
NextDNS has a more advanced version (you can add and remove domains) for $19.90/year
It's not quite as good as having a PiHole or similar setup because some devices have their DNS settings hard coded. You have to route those addresses to override your Chromecast, etc.
https://adguard.com/en/adguard-dns/overview.html https://nextdns.io/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, that sucks. We use Chrome extensions (from source) to automate aspects of our customer service work, and we can't distribute these extensions on a hosted store. So Firefox prevents this perfectly reasonable thing? WTF.
> So Firefox prevents this perfectly reasonable thing? WTF. Not true. You can get them signed without publicly redistributing them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before they bought Pocket it was a plugin/service that was completely optional. They bought Pocket and integrated it into the browser at a much deeper level, making it opt-out instead of opt-in (and very difficult for the average user to opt out; you have to change several settings in about:config which most users have no idea even exists). I felt they should have made it an opt-in service that the user can choose on…
Pocket, the service for collecting and syncing articles, is basically a separate thing from pocket suggestions . The original service was integrated a while ago, but it doesn't really have severe privacy implications. If you click a pocket button, it asks you to log in. If you don't click, it does nothing. This is the one that's hard to disable, but it's an annoyance more than a security problem. Pocket suggestions a…
My point being, even if Pocket is 100% benign and never leaks any user data, the user should still have a say in whether it is turned on by default on a fresh installation. Anything less is user-hostile, a descriptor Mozilla should avoid if possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ya I find the outright hatred for Brave on HN a bit bizarre. The more sustainable alternatives we have to Google Chrome hegemony the better IMHO. I say this as both a FF and Brave user.
You do know Brave is built on top of Chromium which is funded by Google right? I won't call a browser that relies so much on Google as a sustainable alternative to Chrome.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation#Financing
This is a bug, have you guys seen a software bug before? What is it with the appetite for outrage? Using brave on Android devices and not planning to switch
I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't an outrage against big tech companies. But small company should be held to the same standards, especially as they make those very features their main point of existence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can definitely see the reasoning. I suppose I'm still debating whether it's good to have all my personal information with only one company or spread around a bit more. If I was going to plump for one company, Microsoft might not be the worst choice simply because their business model doesn't revolve around monetizing my personal information.
> Microsoft might not be the worst choice simply because their business model doesn't revolve around monetizing my personal information. Yet they seem intent on collecting as much data as possible.
Compared to google which continues to make their UI more hostile to users with each iteration.
They are an adtech company. That should be all we need to know, right? I'm willing to change my mind, so far it doesn't make sense to use Brave.
Its a very different ad tech company. Not only is it opt in, but all the ad matching happens locally. 1) The browser periodically downloads an ad catalog (signal in, no signal out). 2) The browser now holds (1) the ad catalog (with some targeting keywords and terms set by advertisers); (2) your browsing history. 3) It then matches the ads from the catalog against your browsing history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His investments into Locately in 2010. Locately is pioneering the science of Location Analytics. Locately's software analyzes semi-continuous GPS data from mobile phones to better understand what consumers do and how they shop. Edit: why the downvotes? :/ I like my HN points...
Either someone who's not comfortable with your comment or you forgot to link to a source.
Someone who?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=browser%20ch...
Apparently the main reason Chrome has the name is that the dev team leads like fast cars and that was the initial project code name. The reference to "UI Chrome" was largely an accident. https://www.thewindowsclub.com/google-chrome-reason-revealed...