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

81–90 of 105 posts

Re: Waterfox Browser

#81

Post by metagame »

dralley wrote: post #67
metagame wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Whoa, borderline unusable because of something Chrome has effectively been doing for a long time? https://imgur.com/a/baXZDrN

Yes, actually. Chrome is unusable adware. Firefox is borderline unusable adware, and it takes a long time to remove all of the proprietary components and proprietary services from it. Waterfox is probably doing something to snatch your data, but it probably won't outright impede your use of the browser. Epiphany exists, but they still aren't shipping with WebExtensions a year after implementing them because it goes against the "GNOME way" or some garbage knockoff-HIG.

There really isn't a good web browser.

Re: Waterfox Browser

#82

Post by aasasd »

Sillzen wrote: post #77
sul_tasto wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vivaldi is also a web browser: https://vivaldi.com/

Indeed, but I am unsure what OP would want to avoid doing on Vivaldi but would be happy to do on Waterfox.

Dirty stuff probably. Wouldn't want to taint the primary workhorse by association with ogling naked people and buying weed.

Re: Waterfox Browser

#83

Post by warent »

Curious to know why is it so complicated to build a web browser?

Yes, they're probably the most complex piece of software humans have ever created. That being said, it seems like it would be possible to create a browser that handles all of the most common use cases, so ~90% of your browsing experience.

Sure, maybe you need years and dozens of engineers for the final 10% but who cares about that bit? Wouldn't people be willing to accept this feature tradeoff for a new, user-friendly browser?

Re: Waterfox Browser

#84

Post by johnday »

warent wrote: post #83

Curious to know why is it so complicated to build a web browser? Yes, they're probably the most complex piece of software humans have ever created. That being said, it seems like it would be possible to create a browser that handles all of the most common use cases, so ~90% of your browsing experience. Sure, maybe you need years and dozens of engineers for the final 10% but who cares about that bit? Wouldn't people b…

The problem is that due to complexity accrued over time, the 10% of features you speak about are likely going to be core to the operation of the web's most popular sites (FAANMG). And not supporting those sites means not supporting a huge swath of the population who consider those sites critical.

Re: Waterfox Browser

#85

Post by zie »

warent wrote: post #83

Curious to know why is it so complicated to build a web browser? Yes, they're probably the most complex piece of software humans have ever created. That being said, it seems like it would be possible to create a browser that handles all of the most common use cases, so ~90% of your browsing experience. Sure, maybe you need years and dozens of engineers for the final 10% but who cares about that bit? Wouldn't people b…

Think re-writing 100% compatibility with MS windows and how much a of pain in the butt that would be. Wine has been at it for 28 years and they still haven't really managed.

A web browser these days is arguably of similar complexity.

Re: Waterfox Browser

#86

Post by jcranmer »

atoav wrote: post #34
phinnaeus wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would think it's whenever the page content was last updated, rather than first published. I also think it's silly to put on your website, but I am not a lawyer and don't know if it has any actual purpose.

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 ©1994 means. What it actually does is it establishes first publication date.

In US copyright law, there are three dates that control copyright: 120 years from creation (first fixation), 95 years from first publication, or life + 70 years. If any one of those terms expire [1], the work moves into the public domain.

Affixing an earlier copyright date affords no advantages. Pre-1976 copyright reform, flubbing the formalities means you lose copyright entirely. After that reform, you still keep copyright, but instead you lose out on some ability to recuperate losses, and you give your opponent extra legal ammunition in any copyright infringement cases.

[1] Strictly speaking, life + 70 years actually rules when the author is determined. If you read the law carefully, once the fixation/publication threshold is crossed, it is now the burden of proof of the copyright owner to demonstrate that life + 70 hasn't happened yet, and furthermore to demonstrate that the alleged infringer failed to do due diligence to determine the death date of the author. In practice, it could end up really being a lesser-of-all-three situation, but we aren't going to get any case law on this until 2074 at the earliest, since life + 70 doesn't start until 1978.

Re: Waterfox Browser

#87

Post by pndy »

Sillzen wrote: post #58
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"?

Vivaldi is set to be very strict when it comes to ads and tracking, and that affects sometimes how sites works. I've set Waterfox to be more "liberal"; it's for dirty-dirty stuff and dirty stuff. I'm also using it as a kind of sentiment I feel to Gecko engine. I'm not using Firefox since v60 - one of updates damaged my profile in an unrecoverable way.

Re: Waterfox Browser

#88

Post by ivoras »

warent wrote: post #83

Curious to know why is it so complicated to build a web browser? Yes, they're probably the most complex piece of software humans have ever created. That being said, it seems like it would be possible to create a browser that handles all of the most common use cases, so ~90% of your browsing experience. Sure, maybe you need years and dozens of engineers for the final 10% but who cares about that bit? Wouldn't people b…

Which complex parts would you omit?

If you omit video playing, you've prevented people from using YouTube and Netflix. If you omit compositing graphics on top of this video, you've again prevented YouTube and Netflix from showing UI.

If you omit canvas and SVG, fancy modern parallax scrolling sites will not load.

If you omit WebGL, another half of modern sites which just use it for a rotating logo won't load.

Etc, etc... you really can't release a non-100% feature-full browser these days.

Re: Waterfox Browser

#89

Post by dvogel »

warent wrote: post #83

Curious to know why is it so complicated to build a web browser? Yes, they're probably the most complex piece of software humans have ever created. That being said, it seems like it would be possible to create a browser that handles all of the most common use cases, so ~90% of your browsing experience. Sure, maybe you need years and dozens of engineers for the final 10% but who cares about that bit? Wouldn't people b…

That would have been more possible a decade ago when the web browsers were less compatible and sites relied on the lowest common denominator feature set. With the increase in compatibility sites now rely on libraries that each depend on a different 90% of the feature set. Breaking interactions between those dependencies has a cascade effect that leads to really, really, really frustrating experiences today. e.g. a UI that looks perfect and has interaction effects working but a background interaction fails silently. A decade ago compatibility issues were more common but IME they were less frustrating because there was usually a rendering artifact or foreground error that made it clear the author just didn't support your browser.

Re: Waterfox Browser

#90

Post by garmaine »

southerntofu wrote: post #64
garmaine wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Copyright renewal is a real thing. 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)

Pretty much all jurisdictions. Even in Europe the copyright is extended if you alter a work.
Post reply on HN