Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IPFS Support in Brave

brave.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 464 posts

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#31

Post by da_big_ghey »

arsome wrote: post #25
jejkfmgmgk wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably the one by the Mozilla CEO, "We need more than deplatforming"[1] 1: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d...

That headline is certainly inflammatory, but I don't think the actual content of the post is nearly as bad - they're not suggesting web browser start flagging/blocking sites or anything similar like it initially made me think. They're simply suggesting further transparency in algorithmic suggestions and research be conducted. You could even argue that they're suggesting that deplatforming simply isn't the ultimate so…

You're right that the content itself doesn't suggest Firefox doing something troubling, but the headline certainly does. It bothers me much more from a company known for privacy than it would from someone else.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#32

Post by josteink »

iknowstuff wrote: post #5

Lovely. Mozilla should be advancing the web in similar ways in Firefox.

They’re too busy taking down MDN, firing talented engineers, diverse-hiring non-developers and funding feminist Wordpress-setup camps these days for that to ever happen.

Mozilla today is not the Mozilla we knew.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#33

Post by mahalel »

DenseComet wrote: post #21
jonathansampson wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can run multiple profiles in parallel in Brave, and we don't allow cookies to bleed over into other domains anyway. That's the default behavior. It would be great to have tabs from different profiles in a single window, but that isn't presently supported. Our work is not yet complete!

Its not just about having tabs from different profiles in a single window. Firefox containers allows things like automatically opening a specific site in a certain container. It allows for extensions such as the Facebook Container and Temporary Containers. There's a huge amount of functionality it provides.

I agree. As someone who works with numerous customer environments this extension is critical for my productivity. Having a different profile (ie Chrome style) is nowhere close.

If the container re-ordering patch[0] would be implemented it would be perfect, but it seems to be stuck in limbo.

If Brave implemented this and did it right (with sorting & reordering) I would consider switching.

[0] https://github.com/mozilla/multi-account-containers/pull/160...

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#34

Post by generalizations »

jonathansampson wrote: post #18
needz wrote: post #11

Neat. Still can't make the switch until they have an equivalent to Firefox containers.

You can run multiple profiles in parallel in Brave, and we don't allow cookies to bleed over into other domains anyway. That's the default behavior. It would be great to have tabs from different profiles in a single window, but that isn't presently supported. Our work is not yet complete!

In my use case, I keep multiple containerized tabs pinned with each of my (numerous, for work etc) email accounts. If Brave is able to support that (and tree style tabs), I'd switch in a heartbeat.

Would love to try out the new stuff, but I depend on containers and tree tabs.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#35

Post by osgovernment »

Note that IPFS has had a browser extension for quite some time for IPFS support. This inclusion is mostly akin to bundling a browser extension. While it is great to see it included by default, it really isn't a great reason to switch browsers unless you have other reasons:

https://github.com/ipfs-shipyard/ipfs-companion

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#36

Post by jonathansampson »

Splatter wrote: post #23

I have been a diehard user of the Vivaldi browser for a while now. I just posted the referenced article to their forum stating that Vivaldi should follow suit. Without such support I'll likely change to Brave specifically due to IPFS support. The internet is in desperate need of decentralization.

We would love for you to download Brave and give the emerging IPFS support a spin. Any feedback you have about expectations and experience would be greatly appreciated.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#37

Post by jerf »

needz wrote: post #11

Neat. Still can't make the switch until they have an equivalent to Firefox containers.

I have the Sessionbox extension for Chrome running in Brave, and it's broadly similar. It is not identical and I do not promise it'll meet your needs, especially if you define your needs as "exactly the same way it works in Firefox", but it's worth a try.

But it's doing what I want it to do, have multiple AWS accounts open at once in one browser.

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#38

Post by ku-man »

Triv888 wrote: post #26
jejkfmgmgk wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably the one by the Mozilla CEO, "We need more than deplatforming"[1] 1: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d...

Mozilla's current CEO is like the opposite of what Firefox used to stand for... I can't wait to switch for something better. I think that he really likes the Google dollars. Disabling most add-ons in Firefox Mobile, really? I still use the old engine (Fennec) even if it probably makes me vulnerable. And there's a bunch of other problems that make the new Fenix engine less useful then Fennec... I don't even know what…

Isn't the current CEO a female? (a very incompetent one I understand)

Re: IPFS Support in Brave

#39

Post by alpaca128 »

thescriptkiddie wrote: post #6
k__ wrote: post #3

Pretty awesome. I switched from Firefox to Brave a few months ago and really like it. Chrome performance is really needed for all the heavy weight browser apps I use for my job and Brave paired with NextDNS form a really good ad-block team.

Am I the only one who has significant performance problems with Brave/Chrome/chromium? Is this an OSX issue?

Performance on Linux is pretty nice - until I open more than a handful of tabs, which then leads to the computer spending more time swapping memory than anything else. Which is probably fine for the majority of users, but kind of a dealbreaker for me. And I don't plan on expanding memory just for the browser.
Post reply on HN