I am surprise there is no mention of Librewolf here. The differences of Librewolf and Waterfox is pretty hard to grasp, I am digging a little bit but so far I guess I would say using any of them is still way better than the main alternatives. Librewolf is, to me, the way better alternative as this is really in the FOSS mindset : a tool for everyone to use and by anyone to contribute. Seeing their plateform alone (Lem…
15 Years of Forking
51–60 of 65 posts
Re: 15 Years of Forking
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that's correct. Startpage is the default search partner, and their search ads aren't blocked by default. Users can enable blocking on that page too with a single toggle in settings. That's why I laid it all out in this post, to let users know - it's about keeping Waterfox sustainable (paying bills, putting food on the table) as it's my only source of income currently. I've mentioned in another comment, that I've…
>I think that's an unfair framing. No one is paying Waterfox to allow ads ... >Yes, that's correct. Startpage is the default search partner, and their search ads aren't blocked by default. The framing seems fair to me. Certainly not more unfair than those who criticize Firefox for having a search deal that defaults to Google while allowing the user to change it (which some people do)
Re: 15 Years of Forking
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a recent comment: "if you don't know: any browser extension can read input/password fields across all site(s) you gave it access to (yeah, it's crazy but unfortunately true)." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47553048 Would either WF or LW fix that? Is it true?
Nothing to "fix" per se - webextensions need to interact with website data, otherwise they wouldn't be much use. Any extension with content script access can read page content including form fields. The only real mitigation is being selective about which extensions you install and what permissions you grant them (even then, ownership of extensions change hands, updates can change what they do... it's a never ending b…
What am I missing?
Re: 15 Years of Forking
#54Re: 15 Years of Forking
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
From TFA: > The original text implied Brave special cases ads on their search partner’s page - they don’t. Brave blocks third party ads on all websites by default, regardless of any partnership, and offers an additional aggressive mode that blocks first party ads as well. Waterfox’s approach of allowing text ads on the default search partner page is our own decision for sustainability, I would like to stress on the l…
I think that's an unfair framing. No one is paying Waterfox to allow ads - it's a revenue share from the default search engine (which I've always been transparent about)[1], same as every other independent browser that has a search partner. It's not an "acceptable ads" programme where advertisers pay to be whitelisted. [1] https://www.waterfox.com/docs/policies/revenue-model/
On the Cookie Banner Reduction page[1] the section titled "Turn Cookie Banner Reduction on or off" talks about settings which don't exist (at least in the latest portable version 6.6.7 from Portapps.io). There is no option to block cookie banners in all windows.
[1] https://www.waterfox.com/support/cookie-banner-reduction/#tu...
Re: 15 Years of Forking
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, that's correct. Startpage is the default search partner, and their search ads aren't blocked by default. Users can enable blocking on that page too with a single toggle in settings. That's why I laid it all out in this post, to let users know - it's about keeping Waterfox sustainable (paying bills, putting food on the table) as it's my only source of income currently. I've mentioned in another comment, that I've…
>I think that's an unfair framing. No one is paying Waterfox to allow ads ... >Yes, that's correct. Startpage is the default search partner, and their search ads aren't blocked by default. The framing seems fair to me. Certainly not more unfair than those who criticize Firefox for having a search deal that defaults to Google while allowing the user to change it (which some people do)
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Re: 15 Years of Forking
#57> Mozilla : Break free from big tech - our products put you in control of a safer, more private internet experience. (Adds AI that needs 7 about:config entries to disable, until users roast it enough that they add an off switch.) > Waterfox : And we still don’t have AI in the browser. That hasn’t changed. The browser’s job is to load web pages, keep your data private, and get out of the way. It seems other browsers h…
Re: 15 Years of Forking
#58Compute/resource monetization is the one after all these years that has done the best at replacing ads as a means of monetization for users, and it requires a very intelligent scheduling system + ethical ecosystem to work (most have just tried running crypto miners that cost users more electricity than they earn).
Re: 15 Years of Forking
#59Adless monetization is a very difficult challenge - something I've worked on many times over the years (compute-monetization, shopping-commission monetization, payment interchange monetization) and it's always been very difficult to compete with ads. I think the waterfox approach of "ads if you're OK with it" opt-in and sane defaults is the better one, but it's very difficult to make ends meat compared to competitors…
Re: 15 Years of Forking
#60There is no pure browser anymore. The little red hen of Google funds everything, and forks like Waterfox just change a few parts of the UI but still rely on the upstream for all actual browser code. Even Mozilla was bootstrapped by AOL-Time Warner Back in the day. If you look at Ladybird they already have lots of ad companies funding it as well and will demand its enshittification if it gets popular.