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

LibreWolf – A fork of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom

librewolf-community.gitlab.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 310 posts

Re: LibreWolf – A fork of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom

#301

Post by sfink »

BrendanEich wrote: post #300
sfink wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read that tweet, it mainly says that they made the choice based on DRM licensing. Well, plus a vague "it lost on many dimensions in a head to head comparison enumerating gaps vs. Chrome". Which I can't argue, because there are no specifics to disagree with. That said, I work on Gecko and it is indeed an old crufty codebase with numerous issues. From what I've seen of Blink, it seems surprisingly similar (overa…

DRM was not the main issue we faced, just one of many. I wasn't vague, Twitter limits size to 280 chars. We developed a decision spreadsheet with the data in almost all the rows weighing against Gecko. Your "seeming enthusiasm for burning some bridges behind him" is bunk. On what did you base it? Again, we started Brave based on Gecko (multiprocess sandboxed embedding via Graphene, which was developed for FirefoxOS).…

> I wasn't vague, Twitter limits size to 280 chars. We developed a decision spreadsheet with the data in almost all the rows weighing against Gecko.

Perhaps "vague" is too loaded a word? I did not mean it as an insult or complaint, I was just pointing out the fact that the reasons were unclear because they were mentioned but not described. Twitter's character limit is a perfectly valid reason for that. And the literal meaning of the word "vague" applies perfectly.

> Your "seeming enthusiasm for burning some bridges behind him" is bunk. On what did you base it?

> ...To suggest I did anything uneconomic out of spite is silly.

I was not suggesting that.

Sorry, it seems I did not describe myself well. "Burning bridges" was not a reference to making anti-Gecko technical decisions. It's about unrelated public postings that I object to, but I don't think that here is a place to get into it.

I am confident that the bases for your technical choices were well-founded and I have no reason to suspect that they were made out of spite.

Re: LibreWolf – A fork of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom

#302

Post by Zuider »

junon wrote: post #271
leppr wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's open-source software.

That means nothing. Go read the audacity threads pertaining to trying to sneak in Google and some Russian analytics clients.

From the latest Audacity release notes:

>A journaling feature has been added for QA purposes.

What exactly does that mean?

https://github.com/audacity/audacity/releases

Re: LibreWolf – A fork of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom

#303

Post by nmg »

tarasglek wrote: post #128

Author of Mozilla telemetry here. You can accomplish this with official firefox by blacklisting incoming.telemetry.mozilla.org domain, per https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/search?q=telemetry.moz...

I've been a Firefox advocate for years, but after the recent update to 94.0.1 I removed it from my Mac, Linux, and Windows machines because of how it obscures multi-account containers - they are now a hidden icon that you can't click in the toolbar, and it's been moved into the address bar where its functionality has changed. This disrupted my workflow significantly.

I just switched the Librewolf, and installed the plugin there. It's working as expected, and I won't be forced (or incessantly nagged) to update the browser as I was with Firefox.

Thank you for your work on a great browser, but if you have any pull at Mozilla please tell them they're losing core users for good with these forced, unannounced, irrevocable changes to how users work in a browser.

Re: LibreWolf – A fork of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom

#304

Post by longstation »

brightly-salty wrote: post #181
longstation wrote: post #98

Would it be better if the project includes a native ad blocker?

The reasoning given is that maintaining a native version of uBlock Origin would be very costly, and so not worth the focus right now, especially considering that many of their users are already familiar with the extension.

I see. Is there any chance that we could use Brave's adblock? (probably not trivial because it's for Chromium)

Re: LibreWolf – A fork of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom

#305

Post by brightly-salty »

longstation wrote: post #304
brightly-salty wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reasoning given is that maintaining a native version of uBlock Origin would be very costly, and so not worth the focus right now, especially considering that many of their users are already familiar with the extension.

I see. Is there any chance that we could use Brave's adblock? (probably not trivial because it's for Chromium)

I don't think it's trivial, as it is built on Chromium instead of Firefox. However, if you or we as a community wanted to experiment with adding a similar native adblock using the Brave version as a model, I don't think the maintainers would be opposed.

Re: LibreWolf – A fork of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom

#306

Post by junon »

Zuider wrote: post #302
junon wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That means nothing. Go read the audacity threads pertaining to trying to sneak in Google and some Russian analytics clients.

From the latest Audacity release notes: >A journaling feature has been added for QA purposes. What exactly does that mean? https://github.com/audacity/audacity/releases

That's not what I meant. Search the PRs for the most commented upon PR. It'll invariably be the one about adding Google analytics and telemetry to Audacity.

Re: LibreWolf – A fork of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom

#307

Post by labawi »

GhettoComputers wrote: post #288
junon wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not having to use servers at all is kind of a preference. Why do browsers need to phone home at all?

When you use a site, you’re using servers and they have logs. This is unrelated to the browser itself, although ideally it shouldn’t have telemetry. But even so the servers of sites you use will and you can’t control the data collection.

Maybe I am opening a local file? Using a local network resource? On a limited/expensive connection and don't want it auto-updating some BS? Running the browser in kiosk mode as a glorified HTML/CSS/JS GUI for a local app (apparently a thing now)?

It's really apparent when I socks proxy into a remote site (via limited 2G) to view a few kB worth of HTML admin page and firefox starts autoupdating a bunch of remote resources.

Re: LibreWolf – A fork of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom

#308

Post by account42 »

tristor wrote: post #205
anonymousnotme wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is part of why FF is having user drops. There should be a way to easily set a bunch of preferences in bulk for privacy/security or whatever one wants.

However, the same is true for all other browsers as well as most are forked from Chromium and also use the web extensions API. What other browser provides more control via extensions? This seems like it's not a reason for users to drop.

> This seems like it's not a reason for users to drop.

It's means people have one less reason for sticking with firefox and means more people will stick with what comes with the OS / what google advertises everywhere / what works better with their favorite websites.

Re: LibreWolf – A fork of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom

#309

Post by dblohm7 »

aabbcc1241 wrote: post #289
dblohm7 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Firefox: point your url bar to about:telemetry It shows you all the data that has been gathered. (Though IIRC it might still show stuff even when you've disabled telemetry -- in that case the data is being aggregated locally but not sent.) Go to https://telemetry.mozilla.org To look at the data on the server side. There are more sophisticated ways of querying it, but obviously not everybody can just be handed acce…

Just checked about:telemetry, it seems most data are about CPU and memory stats, nothing related to browsing history.

Mozilla doesn't collect browsing history, period.

Re: LibreWolf – A fork of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom

#310

Post by BrendanEich »

sfink wrote: post #301
BrendanEich wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DRM was not the main issue we faced, just one of many. I wasn't vague, Twitter limits size to 280 chars. We developed a decision spreadsheet with the data in almost all the rows weighing against Gecko. Your "seeming enthusiasm for burning some bridges behind him" is bunk. On what did you base it? Again, we started Brave based on Gecko (multiprocess sandboxed embedding via Graphene, which was developed for FirefoxOS).…

> I wasn't vague, Twitter limits size to 280 chars. We developed a decision spreadsheet with the data in almost all the rows weighing against Gecko. Perhaps "vague" is too loaded a word? I did not mean it as an insult or complaint, I was just pointing out the fact that the reasons were unclear because they were mentioned but not described. Twitter's character limit is a perfectly valid reason for that. And the litera…

Hi Steve, I read through

https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3A%40brendaneich%20mozilla...

and wondered which ones you meant. If I burned a bridge I should try to rebuild, let me know.

If you mean the ones about Mozilla holding back tracking protection while Monica Chew was there, or the ones about Mitchell's ridiculous salary, then we must disagree on "burning bridges". I'm not going back to Mozilla, and even if I hoped to, I see no reason to lie or self-censor about bad things they did after I left.

Post reply on HN