The bad practices of its CEO doesn't inherently write off the software, instead the software's merits should do the talking. Which Chromium-based browser would you recommend based on its merits?
alt
joined 1 year ago
most packages in traditional package managers are not packaged officially, yet we use them all the time.
While there's definitely truth in this, aren't we already trusting the repos of traditional package manager by choosing to use the associated distro? So, by e.g. choosing to use Debian , you've already (somehow) accepted their packages to be 'thrustworthy'. We already trust the developers of the apps/binaries we use. Therefore, we have two sets of parties we trust by default. I would rather not increase the amount of people I have to trust for software, but I can understand why others might differ on this.
Thank you for your input, it's heart-breaking to hear that it's not able to provide GUI applications (and thus browsers by extension). But I'm glad to hear that it has provided you a decent experience so far!
Based on what I saw on macOS I wouldn’t touch Homebrew with a 10 feet pole. We have proper packaging systems in the Linux world.
Could you please elaborate on how the packaging in the Linux world is better? I can imagine why, but I'd rather have a better-informed idea on the matter. Thanks for your input!
The Chromium snap is supported by Canonical so that’s a great candidate for anything that comes with snap or can use snap. If I couldn’t use snap, I’d use the Chromium flatpak from Flathub.
I use Chromium from my repo already, but as stated in the OP; I would switch in an instance to Brave if I could.
I am tagged, but did you address me as well? If so, my reasons can be found in the OP.
you’re not going to get GUI apps that way though
I should have known better :P. Thanks for the input!
By default it installs itself into
/home/homebrewor something
I don't like that either. Thanks for that insight and thanks for sharing the link to change that!
Homebrew did some weird permissions things
I should look into this. Thank you!
Are you sure that any of the flatpak-based browsers actually run in Wayland. For the longest time they had to be explicitly enabled to work with Wayland and not X11. Even very recently both Brave and Edge required flags to run Wayland (and maybe still do); though Chromium-based even require specific flags to enable the two-finger swiping for navigation; --ozone-platform-hint=auto --enable-features=TouchpadOverscrollHistoryNavigation , as can be found on the ArchWiki. As for the ones based on Firefox, they should work right out of the gate. If they don't, then first check if it's running on Wayland; perhaps running the flatpak override --env=MOZ_ENABLE_WAYLAND=1 command in terminal already solves that issue, however this should have been enabled by default. If it continues to not work, then -after ensuring that you are in fact running Wayland- you should make a bug report as this isn't intended behavior.
What do you think of Arkenfox' following statements regarding Privacy Badger?
-
Ghostery, Disconnect, Privacy Badger, etc
-
Redundant with Total Cookie Protection (dFPI)
-
Note: Privacy Badger no longer uses heuristics by default, and enabling it makes you easily detected
-
Which can be found here.
I have multiple LibreWolf profiles with different uses and therefore different extensions tied to each one of them. For example, I've got one in which I exclusively watch the Youtube content I'm interested; through Invidious of course*. Therefore, extensions like SponsorBlock and Video DownloadHelper are only found on that profile to improve the experience thereof without negatively affecting the other profiles. This is mostly done to protect the profile I use for regular browsing, which is somewhat alluded to by the team behind Arkenfox with "We recommend keeping extensions to a minimum: they have privileged access within your browser, require you to trust the developer, can make you stand out, and weaken site isolation.".
As for the extensions I have on my profile that I use for regular/random browsing; those would only consist of uBlock Origin, Redirector and Skip Redirect. All of which are -to some degree- endorsed by the Arkenfox-team. Though, from time to time, I am guilty of using Dark Reader as well; it's just too good to miss out on at times.
Brave is known to take privacy (and security) more seriously than its contenders. It's therefore unsurprising to find it recommended by Privacy Guides. Some of its unique features related to privacy can be found here.
Excellent extensions like uBlock Origin heavily rely on Manifest v2 in order to do their bidding. Unfortunately, Chromium intends to stop supporting it. Which will inevitably lead to many Chromium-based browsers to follow the lead and stop supporting it as well. At least Brave has confirmed multiple times to support Manifest v2 longer. Furthermore, I'm not aware of any extension that does an equally excellent job at spoofing your fingerprint randomly. Though, I'd love to be corrected on that.