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

Waterfox Browser

waterfox.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 105 posts

Re: Waterfox Browser

#51

Post by forgotmypw17 »

lelandfe wrote: post #41
forgotmypw17 wrote: post #31

I use Waterfox and Waterfox Classic, along five other browsers, on a 2008 iMac. Waterfox is stable and workable for me. I use Vimium-FF for keyboard things. My use case: I only visit a few sites, including this one, and rarely click the article links here. I really like it, it is like a Firefox which has been through obedience school, and now knows how to behave itself. Definitely in my top-10 favorite post-2015 brow…

> I use Waterfox and Waterfox Classic, along five other browsers Interesting - would you mind sharing what you use the others for?

The thing I do by far the most is testing my own websites.

I love the Web and I believe strongly in Any Browser, so I regularly test in a whole variety of browsers to ensure compatibility.

I try to dogfood this as much as possible. For example, I'm posting this with Firefox 3.6.

Re: Waterfox Browser

#52

Post by beebeepka »

WithinReason wrote: post #49
ev1 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want both of these to be false. browser.urlbar.suggest.quicksuggest.sponsored browser.urlbar.sponsoredTopSites

Thanks. They were already off for me, and I don't remember being asked about enabling them after an install...

There were stories about it a few days ago. It's US only thing, for now.

Re: Waterfox Browser

#53

Post by rzzzt »

garmaine wrote: post #36
atoav wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you change the copyright forward. A copyright 1994 means "This content exists since 1994, if you copied after that, there is proof I have made this before you"

That's not what copyright is for or how copyright works. Copyright renewal is a real thing. Copyright years generally get refreshed whenever the content changes.

A from-to year format solves both problems.

Re: Waterfox Browser

#54

Post by e3bc54b2 »

rogual wrote: post #40

"No telemetry / We don't need to know what you do within your browser." OK, good. "Limited Data Collection / We try and take the bare minimum amount of information to keep things running smoothly. " Wait, what? So which is it?

My guess would be automated crash reports. Those are too good to ignore, and usually don't include much PII.

But its a guess. Would be nice to have devs pitch in here.

Re: Waterfox Browser

#55

Post by joecool1029 »

WithinReason wrote: post #49
ev1 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want both of these to be false. browser.urlbar.suggest.quicksuggest.sponsored browser.urlbar.sponsoredTopSites

Thanks. They were already off for me, and I don't remember being asked about enabling them after an install...

They won't ask or inform you of this it just gets enabled. (Currently just in US). HN discussion from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28804588

Re: Waterfox Browser

#56

Post by bscphil »

solarkraft wrote: post #48

As pointed out in another comment [0], apparently it’s extremely outdated. Other comments describe it as unstable and lacking Apple Silicon builds. If you’re just looking for a version of Firefox without the user-hostile parts, this ain’t exactly it. From my months-old research such a thing doesn’t really seem to exist yet, but I definitely think it should. It could perhaps initially be shipped as a set of patches to…

> If you’re just looking for a version of Firefox without the user-hostile parts

LibreWolf seems like an attempt at this: https://librewolf-community.gitlab.io/

Re: Waterfox Browser

#57

Post by mobilemidget »

rogual wrote: post #40

"No telemetry / We don't need to know what you do within your browser." OK, good. "Limited Data Collection / We try and take the bare minimum amount of information to keep things running smoothly. " Wait, what? So which is it?

My little snitch popped up like 20 times for callbacks to mozilla and other hosts..

Re: Waterfox Browser

#58

Post by Sillzen »

pndy wrote: post #16

Previous discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20047170 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15800634 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10554083 And the one on acquisition by System1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22338321 It's my choice for "sandbox" browser - as in doing all stuff that I wouldn't want to do on Vivaldi.

What do you mean by "stuff that I wouldn't want to do on Vivaldi"?

Re: Waterfox Browser

#59

Post by bscphil »

guerrilla wrote: post #37
bscphil wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly I have been disappointed beyond the capacity for outrage with Firefox. Do you know of any positive cases of a distribution that disables this? Edit: just to add to this, my understanding is that Mozilla uses (abuses?) their trademark on Firefox to keep the distributions in line. If you distribute a version of Firefox that's been patched to remove anti-features, you can't call it Firefox.

Arch Linux seems to have disabled it. Both the config flags are false for me and I haven't touched that.

They do not. You can check their build files yourself here: https://github.com/archlinux/svntogit-packages/tree/packages...

Indeed, it would be rather surprising if they did, as I'm an Arch user as well and they have not disabled the sponsored new tab suggestions or the Pocket article recommendations. Hard to say what would be beyond the pale for the Arch maintainers.

From what I can tell from this thread, they are currently selectively enabling this for certain users. Maybe it just hasn't been enabled for you yet, or you're in a region (non-US) that doesn't get it enabled?

Re: Waterfox Browser

#60

Post by bscphil »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #38
bscphil wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly I have been disappointed beyond the capacity for outrage with Firefox. Do you know of any positive cases of a distribution that disables this? Edit: just to add to this, my understanding is that Mozilla uses (abuses?) their trademark on Firefox to keep the distributions in line. If you distribute a version of Firefox that's been patched to remove anti-features, you can't call it Firefox.

I've never seen ads in the address bar and when I checked the about:config for those two items they were both false. I installed it from the Pop OS! repository. It isn't a patch to Firefox just configuration.

As far as I can tell, they do not. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that their Firefox package is just taken directly from Ubuntu, and they only apply a single theming option on top of that: https://github.com/pop-os/default-settings/blob/master_focal...
Post reply on HN