61–70 of 105 posts
Especially, modern Firefox is wicked fast, while just a few versions before, it was less so. The difference is _staggering_.
I think there is a space for add ons to setup Firefox to be more privacy focused. It's easier to maintain than a fork: compiling on so many targets such a huge software is very hard.
Several things make me skeptical about this browser. 1) Homepage is a bit uncared for. The Copyright shows "2020" at the bottom, the top screenshot looks doctored rather than being a real screenshot. 2) It's owned by an ad marketing platform, System1, as noted in the FAQ. On the plus side, the Github repository is active.
The reviews are pretty great. Definitely legit. > “It’s incredibly difficult for new browsers to penetrate the market, but there’s one such browser called Waterfox, which is attempting to gain a foothold into the market by claiming to be the fastest browser in existence by leveraging on the 64-bit architecture of the latest operating systems.” - Can A New Web Browser Break Into the Market? / London Datastore Woah, th…
Waterfox is a project that has been around for long enough (~2011) that 64-bit was actually a thing people cared about.
> they even give money to Microsoft Edge!
They are saying they covered several topics in the interview, of which one was charity, and another was Microsoft Edge.
As pointed out in another comment [0], apparently it’s extremely outdated.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/
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.
Not in most jurisdictions, no. What's your country where copyright renewal is still a thing? (no judgement here, despite all my hatred for copyright i'd rather have copyright renewal than copyright until 50y after death of all editors/compositors/authors as we have in Europe)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, context for this? I take a pretty thorough scalpel to removing any traces of sponsored content from Firefox, and it never occurred to me that they might have ads in the address bar. Is there a previous discussion an announcement about this?
You want both of these to be false. browser.urlbar.suggest.quicksuggest.sponsored browser.urlbar.sponsoredTopSites
browser.urlbar.trimURLs
False.
It is possible that I'm so culturally eccentric that the obstruction of useful information fails to appeal to me.
By reading the subtitle 'a perfect ballance between privacy and usability' i think that it wont have privacy and might be less user friendly that other browsers. Also, the statement that you try to collect less data doesn't says anything about privacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It doesn't ship ads in your web browser Well, Waterfox is owned by an advertising company.
Sure, and I'm not saying it's good for privacy. But Firefox in its default setting is also bordering unusable, inserting ads in the address bar! It's incredible that an advertising company does better than a for-profit owned by a non-profit in this regard.
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…
There are two versions of Waterfox: Classic, based on Gecko 56 that has backported security patches (but is not recommended to be used unless you are desperate to use XUL extensions) and the 3rd Generation (G3) based on ESR releases.
Waterfox Classic is based on XUL and while we back port security patches as best we can, I always try motivate existing users to migrate to the newer versions. I’m not going to force an upgrade on Classic users as it will break their current setup and instead leave it their choice.
We follow the ESR release currently for “current” versions (the default download on the website) and since ESR78 didn’t support ARM on macOS there were no builds for it.
Now that we have the beta out for the ESR91 version, ARM support for macOS is available: https://github.com/WaterfoxCo/Waterfox/releases/tag/G4.0.0b2
I’d like to think that Waterfox G3+ does fit in your criteria.
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"?
The problem is, it's very old, and with Firefox, the good stuff comes with the last versions. Especially, modern Firefox is wicked fast, while just a few versions before, it was less so. The difference is _staggering_. I think there is a space for add ons to setup Firefox to be more privacy focused. It's easier to maintain than a fork: compiling on so many targets such a huge software is very hard.