711–720 of 721 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are OK that - by default - you type something in the Firefox address bar and some random company you've heard of gets a copy of it? You are A-OK with this? Because this is on by default in FF93, be it a new install or an upgrade. For now limited to the US, but it's safe to assume they are just testing waters.
Its not by default. You have to turn this feature on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We all know regular users don’t change settings. At the least it needs to be opted out by default.
From the article ai understand you must opt in to make this available: These suggestions — which aim to enhance and speed up your searching experience — are only enabled when you provide access to new data types. People complain when the default is opted-in. Now someone makes something that by default is opted-out and... people still complain. They ask that when someone uses telemetry, that would be shown upfront. Wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's incredible. I think Brave/BAT is pretty much the only project in the crypto space that has a straightforward answer to "how do you guys plan to make money?" question, yet it is called "outright corrupt" and implied they are stealing from users somehow. I really wonder why there is so much cognitive dissonance.
Just speaking personally, but every time I've ever confronted a Brave dev online it's been among the worst experiences I've ever had. Every time I try to espouse an issue that I have with the design or architecture, I get lambasted for sharing it and then they insist that I'm objectively wrong. Browser preference is ultimately subjective, like your choice of editor or operating system: the least you can do is explain…
> Every time I try to espouse an issue that I have with the design or architecture
If you start a conversation with "issues that you have", you are going to have a hard time. Always. Starting with "issues that you have" is bad because (a) it assumes that you know more than the developers who have done the work of designing and addressing the trade-offs of the system and went through the actual work of developing the solution, (b) it assumes that your needs are more important than those of other users who are satisfied with the solution and (c) places the burden of solving your issue onto their shoulders while offering nothing in return.
In other words: no one likes a know-it-all.
If you start the conversation with the intent of understanding why things were done in a certain way and why certain design choices were made, you will be more likely to get in an engaging and productive conversation than just showing up with a laundry list of things that you'd like to see "fixed". By asking why instead of "confronting" design choices, you are more likely even to get them to recognize when a choice is sub-optimal.
I follow a good part of the lead members in Brave on Twitter. I've seen a lot of conversations from them with other people. Most if not all of them are working with false assumptions and don't even bother to question themselves. Those that come right away aggressive against them or assuming malice are indeed met with brashness. It might seem rude, but I would probably do the same after fending off the 100th random person on the internet accusing you of things you haven't done or demanding that you do something about the token price.
Those that come with the intent of understanding and assuming good intentions are way more likely to be treated cordially.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "guy in a bathrobe" is still the lead and has the final say. Is he compensated anywhere near what Mozilla's CEO is? In fact is the total comp of all the people significantly involved in Linux kernel development anywhere near the total comp of Mozilla's C-suite? I doubt it.
> Is he compensated anywhere near what Mozilla's CEO is? Torvalds is at $2M and Baker is at $2.5M.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just speaking personally, but every time I've ever confronted a Brave dev online it's been among the worst experiences I've ever had. Every time I try to espouse an issue that I have with the design or architecture, I get lambasted for sharing it and then they insist that I'm objectively wrong. Browser preference is ultimately subjective, like your choice of editor or operating system: the least you can do is explain…
I don't know if your choice of words was intentional, but if I am developer and you come to confront me - I would also be more aggressive in the communication. > Every time I try to espouse an issue that I have with the design or architecture If you start a conversation with "issues that you have", you are going to have a hard time. Always. Starting with "issues that you have" is bad because (a) it assumes that you k…
This is not an issue on Firefox, Chrome, or even Safari god forbid. These browsers are the main contenders because they're simple, and just browsers. Trying to build an "everything machine" is what made Internet Explorer such an unbearable slog, which is why all of our modern browsers are defined more by their limitation than their capabilities.
Again though, these are not my problems to fix. Brave has already burned their bridge of trust by involving themselves in crypto (and pocketing a portion for themselves, worse yet), so I have nothing more to do here than kick back and watch your development slowly turn back into a Mozilla-type org again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if your choice of words was intentional, but if I am developer and you come to confront me - I would also be more aggressive in the communication. > Every time I try to espouse an issue that I have with the design or architecture If you start a conversation with "issues that you have", you are going to have a hard time. Always. Starting with "issues that you have" is bad because (a) it assumes that you k…
I'm not a Brave dev, I'm not going to steer your ship for you. I'm coming here, outright to tell you that the amount of hand-waving that your dev team does is suspicious at best, and it's starting to become the laughingstock of the browser wars. Brave's rhetoric is remarkably similar to a plethora of other crypto scams taking over, which doesn't make BAT's sketchiness any more palatable. Your issue is deeper than opt…
Anyway, you just created a bunch of strawmen and expect others to spend time trying to reasonably argue with you? If this isn't the biggest "QED" to my comment, I don't know what is.
I could point to at least 5 false statements in your 3 paragraphs, but it is clear that you are not interested in having a productive conversation. So, don't be surprised if others just tell you to piss off and be less of an entitled aspie prick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mozilla takes hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue a year. For decades it hired its engineers from the single most expensive place on earth to hire an engineer, the Bay Area. It boosted CEO pay into the millions shortly before laying off a big chunk of its engineering team. If they had taken the cash they spent on "diversifying their revenue streams" (i.e. getting distracted by side projects while their moneyma…
Chrome-Brave, Chrome-Chromium, Chrome-Vivaldi, Chrome-Edge and other Chrome clones are no go because it entrenches Google monopoly and bad practices. IceCat doesn't exist on Windows. There is really close to no choice for browser alternatives.
Long term the gemini protocol and browsers like lagrange might be the only option - its just too hard to build a modern standards supporting web browser these days (even Microsoft has thrown in the towel and adopted Chromium for Edge).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody asked for or wants that. Just let people donate directly to Firefox development, instead of towards a bloated foundation funding millions in exec salaries and project nobody wants.
That is the situation already. Evidently they're not attracting enough donations to not consider advertisements. https://donate.mozilla.org/
No it isn’t. Please stop spreading misinformation.
You can donate to the Mozilla foundation, which wastes copious amounts of money. It is NOT possible to donate towards Firefox development directly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a Brave dev, I'm not going to steer your ship for you. I'm coming here, outright to tell you that the amount of hand-waving that your dev team does is suspicious at best, and it's starting to become the laughingstock of the browser wars. Brave's rhetoric is remarkably similar to a plethora of other crypto scams taking over, which doesn't make BAT's sketchiness any more palatable. Your issue is deeper than opt…
I am not involved with Brave so you may stop addressing me as such. Anyway, you just created a bunch of strawmen and expect others to spend time trying to reasonably argue with you? If this isn't the biggest "QED" to my comment, I don't know what is. I could point to at least 5 false statements in your 3 paragraphs, but it is clear that you are not interested in having a productive conversation. So, don't be surprise…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I really, really, really dislike the language they have used lately. That is exactly the problem I have with it - weasel words and euphemisms; FF is scoring an own-goal here and eroding trust. Why not just tell it like it is. "We need funding and are lining up deals with third parties to display their ads/messaging in the address bar search. We vet these third parties by holding them contractually to these standard…
At first I had an immediate negative reaction to this. But then I thought, okay, they need money, ads in address bar isn't the worst thing in the world. But then then I thought: But only if they are clearly disclosed as ads! Instead we seem to have a combination of " traditional suggestions like browsing history and open tabs, as well as new suggestions from our partners" -- are the "paid placements" clearly designat…