Will it keep up with security patches?
Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork
11–20 of 114 posts
Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork
#12This isn't so much a fork rather than a firefox bundle with some extensions and tweaks or am I wrong? In which it would be quite deceptive in my opinion.
Our website is a touch (read very) out of date. To clarify, we are working on newer features, like the sidebar tabs. Currently, it is a combination of a tech demo and a set of personal preferences (features, extensions, preferences) that I and the other developer would prefer. If you have ideas for new features, I am interested to hear them.
I don't really mind it, you can do whatever you want. I just have a problem with the choice of the word fork in this context, but I guess technically you're not wrong per se. Although it's more a fork of that dot browser build than of firefox itself, is that correct?
Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork
#13What I miss most in FireFox is better multiline script support in the dev console.
The current solution to copy the whole script into the console every time you run it is pretty cumbersome.
Also, when you opened the script from a file, ctrl+save should let you save it back with the same name. Not suggesting a name like "console-input-2022-11-13_9-36-47.js" every time.
Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork
#14What would be cool to see is Vulkan based WebRender and Servo based browser.
What would be cool, is to see built in profile switching.
Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork
#15Will it keep up with security patches?
We try to keep it up to date with the latest version of Firefox. Currently it is bound to 105.0.1 but we will soon be on 106.0.5 (once PR#135 merges).
Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork
#16I'm not sure what this is offering over normal Firefox other than not having to turn off telemetry, install ublock ( and the other mentioned add-ons), and making use of user.js myself? Also if you're making an issue of providing software with no telemetry then your website should probably not include cloud insights tech that: "collects web vitals from the actual devices your visitors are using".
Hi, I am a dev on Pulse Browser. I want to clarify our current development direction (I haven't significant updated the website recently). We have been moving further away from privacy and towards developing/iterating on features faster than Firefox is willing to, along with providing sane defaults. For example, we have been experimenting with a opera/vivaldi-like method of accessing Firefox's sidebar. Whilst you cou…
> We have been moving further away from privacy [...]
I appreciate your honesty, but hearing this was enough for me to file your project into the "not touching with a ten-foot pole" bucket alongside the likes of Wave Browser.
Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork
#17I would like to understand a bit more about this project. It is a fork of an open source git repository. It removes some features. There is some discussion in the comments about "exploring features". Are you presenting this as something for people to play with - download and throw away - or as something to depend on and use? "Pulse Browser" leads me to think the latter, but "experimental Firefox Fork", the former.
Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork
#18I'm not sure what this is offering over normal Firefox other than not having to turn off telemetry, install ublock ( and the other mentioned add-ons), and making use of user.js myself? Also if you're making an issue of providing software with no telemetry then your website should probably not include cloud insights tech that: "collects web vitals from the actual devices your visitors are using".
"Hyper minimalistic UI"
I'm glad to see someone still has the courage to work on browsers -
which is increasingly declared "infeasible". Well done.
> We have been moving further away from privacy and towards
But sorry, I literally stopped reading at that point.
The only feature that people want and need from browsers, and the only reason to even glance twice at yet another Firefox fork is enhanced privacy and cast-iron control over what a browser is doing.
There is enormous scope here to add value - adding client web application firewalls, different, customisable jailing schemes, detailed easy to understand monitoring, file monitors, inviolable fine-grained per-io-device permissions, better Tor and IPFS integration.
How about starting with a browser that can remember your privacy settings, instead of silently "updating" and defaulting back to the worst possible settings as Firefox does? Having the latest (probably broken and more privacy invasive) presentation features would be very low on my list.
Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Hyper minimalistic UI"
I'm glad to see someone still has the courage to work on browsers - which is increasingly declared "infeasible". Well done. > We have been moving further away from privacy and towards But sorry, I literally stopped reading at that point. The only feature that people want and need from browsers, and the only reason to even glance twice at yet another Firefox fork is enhanced privacy and cast-iron control over what a b…
>The only feature that people want [...]
Well, not me.
Re: Pulse Browser – An experimental Firefox fork
#20What does "increases work productivity" even mean? Is this a problem with the original Firefox?