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

LibreWolf – Custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom

librewolf.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 178 posts

Re: LibreWolf – Custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom

#91

Post by bityard »

MrAlex94 wrote: post #13

Disclaimer: I develop Waterfox. I think it’s worth noting that Librewolf provides unsigned binaries and at least on Windows, you need to trust a third party service to provide automatic updates.

I'm sure I've heard of Waterfox before, but this is the first time I have checked it out.

Some constructive criticism, if you're open to it: The web page is just a bunch of standard marketing fluff with about 5 download links scattered around. It looks a lot like every other "product" website out there screaming, "trust us, it'll be worth it!"

If you really want to attract people like me to it, you can't just _say_ you're awesome, you need to _show_ us you're awesome. In your blog (which is hard to find), you express great gratitude towards your users and community. Where is this community, exactly? I might like to join it but I can't find it anywhere. I had to scroll all the way to the bottom of the page to find a link to the source code (which just says "GitHub," mind).

I had to search pretty hard to find out that it is open source and apparently actively maintained, so I will check it out after all. But I was seconds away from just closing the tab out of disinterest and not looking back.

Re: LibreWolf – Custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom

#92

Post by rascul »

sneak wrote: post #11
Nextgrid wrote: post #4

There are many valid counterpoints on why you shouldn't trust/use this, but the mere existence of it raises a very valid point and calls Mozilla's BS; why does this fork exist at all if Mozilla supposedly cares about your privacy, security and freedom?

Mozilla ships Firefox with telemetry (aka spyware, given that it operates silently and automatically without consent) enabled by default. They also ship closed source DRM in the browser which infringes on software freedoms. Mozilla doesn't actually care that much about privacy or freedom, it's just marketing to make line go up and to the right while Mozilla staff can keep collecting paychecks for being "the good guys…

> They also ship closed source DRM in the browser which infringes on software freedoms.

I thought it wasn't shipped with the browser but the browser asks if you want to download it when you first need it.

Re: LibreWolf – Custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom

#93

Post by MrAlex94 »

webmobdev wrote: post #84
MrAlex94 wrote: post #13

Disclaimer: I develop Waterfox. I think it’s worth noting that Librewolf provides unsigned binaries and at least on Windows, you need to trust a third party service to provide automatic updates.

Fair warning. But wasn't Waterfox sold to System1 - "an advertising company that tries to "make advertising better and safer, while respecting consumer privacy" - https://www.ghacks.net/2020/02/14/waterfox-web-browser-sold-... ? I'd feel a lot safer to use a browser that is not owned by an ad company ...

Waterfox is independent again: https://www.waterfox.net/en-US/blog/a-new-chapter-for-waterf...

And System1 are an “ad-tech” company but the term should be used loosely. The ownership made sense as they are a search engine aggregator and they own a bunch of old school search engines like DogPile, InfoSpace etc. Nothing to do with what people associate ad-tech with, i.e. tracking you across the web or collecting personal data.

Re: LibreWolf – Custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom

#94

Post by dralley »

danjoredd wrote: post #51
extr0pian wrote: post #10

Just yesterday I had noticed that, "Suggestions from sponsors" in the address bar had been turned back on after a recent Firefox update, and then installed Librewolf. I really want to use it as my main browser, but certain use cases such as online banking (at least with my credit union) doesn't seem to work properly, so I re-disabled "Suggestions from sponsors" in Firefox and went on with my day. Seriously, changing…

Mozilla has been frustrating, at least to me lately. I want to support them, but very little of the money given to them goes to the browser itself or even their research projects, and the "phoning home" aspect also annoys me. On top of that they are also heavily funded by Google. My personal theory on why they do that is so they don't get hit with an antitrust. Its concerning to me though because that means Google ha…

>but very little of the money given to them goes to the browser itself or even their research projects

They can't take money given to a 501c3 charitable organization and use it to fund the expenses of a for-profit corporation (Mozilla Corp). That would be tax fraud. On the other hand the Mozilla Corp has to exist because otherwise it would be legally challenging to do a lot of things they need to do such as business deals. Exceedingly few Foundations work that way without doing something akin to what Mozilla does.

>Its concerning to me though because that means Google has influence in Firefox, so "using the alternative" still means being affected by Google's decision making. ... They have stood against some of Google's decisions like their web DRM, which is great! But I do wonder if any lower-profile changes might have been pushed through on Google's request.

HNers say this often but nobody has ever freaking pointed to anything. It's nothing but FUD at this point and it's incredibly tiring.

Re: LibreWolf – Custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom

#95

Post by MrAlex94 »

bityard wrote: post #91
MrAlex94 wrote: post #13

Disclaimer: I develop Waterfox. I think it’s worth noting that Librewolf provides unsigned binaries and at least on Windows, you need to trust a third party service to provide automatic updates.

I'm sure I've heard of Waterfox before, but this is the first time I have checked it out. Some constructive criticism, if you're open to it: The web page is just a bunch of standard marketing fluff with about 5 download links scattered around. It looks a lot like every other "product" website out there screaming, "trust us, it'll be worth it!" If you really want to attract people like me to it, you can't just _say_ y…

> Some constructive criticism, if you're open to it:

Definitely, much appreciated. You aren’t wrong about the fluff. We did user studies and showed people responded really well to this kind of landing page. I’ll see if I can have some more “hard facts”, but the average user doesn’t really understand the terminology which is why it’s dumbed down on this page - which essentially equates to fluff I suppose.

For the blog, it’s in the navigation, not sure how to have it more prominent without it being obnoxiously placed? Open to suggestions.

For the community, good points. I’ll make sure the subreddit and GitHub are more easily accessible as that’s where the community is based around and it’s very active.

Re: LibreWolf – Custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom

#96

Post by dralley »

Firmwarrior wrote: post #62
maccard wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mozilla ships Firefox with telemetry (aka spyware, given that it operates silently and automatically without consent) enabled by default. So opt out of it. Calling it spyware is inflammatory, and disregards the reality of the world that we exist in. > It's just marketing to make line go up and to the right while Mozilla staff can keep collecting paychecks for being "the good guys". There's a lot of money involved.…

It's hidden. It's spying. It's software. It's spyware.

It is neither hidden nor spying. The options are prominent in the settings, and both the source code and the policies around what is collection and explanations of how it is used are public. Moreover there is literally a page ("about:telemetry") where you can see exactly what data is being collected and links to all of the aforementioned resources and more. And the data itself (aggregated) is available for viewing at telemetry.mozilla.org.

And they blog about all of this, from how the data is used to how you can see it for yourself to what efforts they make to ensure privacy while doing so.

To call it "hidden" is either deliberately ignorant or a lie, I'm not sure which.

https://blog.mozilla.org/data/tag/telemetry/

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Data_Collection

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/faq/

Re: LibreWolf – Custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom

#97

Post by yumraj »

inversetelecine wrote: post #50
extr0pian wrote: post #10

Just yesterday I had noticed that, "Suggestions from sponsors" in the address bar had been turned back on after a recent Firefox update, and then installed Librewolf. I really want to use it as my main browser, but certain use cases such as online banking (at least with my credit union) doesn't seem to work properly, so I re-disabled "Suggestions from sponsors" in Firefox and went on with my day. Seriously, changing…

The amount of stuff (personal preference) I have to disable in firefox such as Telemetry, Studies/Normandy, Pocket, Advertising and such makes LibreWolf worth it. I do keep a user.js around to speed things up when doing a new install, but it's still annoying to have to read reddit or here to see if an update adds something new to disable. Mullvad browser is another option for those who enjoy Mullvad. Note that it can…

> I do keep a user.js around to speed things up when doing a new install

Could you share, if possible..

Re: LibreWolf – Custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom

#98

Post by MrAlex94 »

ryanrussell wrote: post #67
MrAlex94 wrote: post #13

Disclaimer: I develop Waterfox. I think it’s worth noting that Librewolf provides unsigned binaries and at least on Windows, you need to trust a third party service to provide automatic updates.

These are both interesting niche projects from a user privacy perspective. Is anyone who is more familiar with Waterfox and LibreWolf able to objectively expand on the differences between these projects? It sounds like the unsigned binary may be a maturity issue that will get tackled based on the mission statement(educated guess?). Would greatly appreciate anyone with more knowledge about these projects elaborating.

I’m happy to expand on it - maybe someone else can chime in as well.

From a comment[1] I’ve made before for this kind of comparison:

“Now, ignoring feature differences between all the forks out there, I'd like to present a different perspective and consideration that I think gets overlooked when comparing forks like Waterfox to other forks (if I am incorrect regarding Librewolf, someone please correct me).

* Waterfox provides signed binaries for download. Librewolf (and most of the rest) do not. Checksum's are all well and good, but IMO, not enough. Code signing provides trust.

* Librewolf does not provide auto-updates. There are 3rd party tools out there, but IMHO that brings in its own set of problems, and breaks the chain-of-trust.

* The most important one that I believe, maybe apart from Pale Moon, only Waterfox does, is offers accountability. There is (and has been since 2012) a legal entity behind Waterfox. That used to be Waterfox Limited, then it was System1 and now BrowserWorks (the entity I control). Laws must be abided and the end user actually has an entity to hold accountable. GDPR, CCPA, the rest are things that actually need to be followed. The other projects, who are you really going to hold accountable if things go wrong? To me this is super important because a browser is used for sensitive information. It's just not worth the risk otherwise. This also goes hand in hand with the code signing.

* Above all else, Waterfox has been around for 12 years now.

Don't get me wrong, things like EV code signing certs are a bit of a racket, and yeah you can jump in and code audit all those other forks too. But really, push comes to shove, they can just disappear into the aether.”

[1] https://reddit.com/r/waterfox/comments/14seevh/waterfox_or_l...

Re: LibreWolf – Custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom

#99

Post by lproven »

ryanrussell wrote: post #67
MrAlex94 wrote: post #13

Disclaimer: I develop Waterfox. I think it’s worth noting that Librewolf provides unsigned binaries and at least on Windows, you need to trust a third party service to provide automatic updates.

These are both interesting niche projects from a user privacy perspective. Is anyone who is more familiar with Waterfox and LibreWolf able to objectively expand on the differences between these projects? It sounds like the unsigned binary may be a maturity issue that will get tackled based on the mission statement(educated guess?). Would greatly appreciate anyone with more knowledge about these projects elaborating.

I use Waterfox daily and have evaluated LibreWolf.

My use case: I mainly run the Unity desktop on Linux, both on traditional Ubuntu and on the Ubuntu Unity newly-official remix. On other distros, I use Xfce and I am trying to make a macOS-like layout via the Docklike Taskbar and AppMenu panel plugins.

Waterfox works with external global menus, like Firefox used to in the pre-Quantum era when Ubuntu used Unity itself.

LibreWolf does not.

So, I removed LibreWolf.

I don't care much about the telemetry stuff. Waterfox survived the Foxstuck outage fine and unaffected:

https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/18/foxstuck_firefox_brow...

That's a win.

I adopted Waterfox because I made extensive use of XUL extensions and Mozilla disabled them in Quantum. They still worked in Waterfox, for years, so I stayed.

Waterfox seems to work harder for its users. Mozilla doesn't care.

Waterfox: I came for the extensions, but I stay for the UI improvements and greater reliability.

Re: LibreWolf – Custom version of Firefox, focused on privacy, security and freedom

#100

Post by dralley »

ploum wrote: post #75
Macha wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Browsers are complicated to package and so maintainers may not feel it's worth the time to package a fork of Firefox. Especially as pale moon's drama in the past may have led to a general skepticism about the whole ecosystem.

Never heard about this drama. Any link to share?

An OpenBSD developer was preparing a port of Pale Moon, and the PaleMoon devs were absolutely massive pricks about it, immediately became aggressive and started talking about lawyers, at which point all bridges were burnt and all work on Pale Moon for OpenBSD was dropped.

https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/issues/86

Post reply on HN