Firefox is Google’s controlled opposition. It exists so that Google can claim not to be a monopoly. There’s a reason a significant amount of their funding comes from Google, and it’s not because Google doesn’t have a vested interest in maintaining a single second place browser that’s popular but not too popular.
I want to use Firefox exclusively but there are certain features on other browsers I can’t go without. I have Firefox on all my devices but mainly use Samsung internet on my phone. I love that it can replace the default video player for websites. I also have edge on my phone cause their text to speech is the best I’ve ever seen
As a Brave user who doesn’t dabble with its crypto BS and only uses Private Browsing on it, I find this virtue signaling an overreach. Fuck your downvotes.
Can’t argue with you. The reasons given to give up on brave is because the CEO doesn’t have appropriate ideological view and because of its crypto system value being volatile.
Wooptydo.
I don’t agree with the CEOs point of view on gay marriage but I’m not ceasing to use a decent browser because of it
I never understand why people prefer Vivaldi over, let’s say, Chrome. I personally use FF with hardened security, but if I had no chance, I’d rather give my data to Google, not a browser company with an unknown business model and bloat.
Vivaldi is weird, I once talked with their CEO over on Mastodon (they are active there, which is a good sign, probably), it still felt shady, sadly.
The other thing with Vivaldi is I would love to keep it because of my historical love for Opera and the fact that it’s their founder who started it and it’s truly a passion project for him but I have never seen Vivaldi run smoothly on any machine I’ve ever owned (except the Android version). It’s stutterry and laggy like no other browser (from what I’ve experienced). This has been the case for me on 3 different OSes and 4 different machines, so I’m willing to admit that I may have issues of configuration, but something else seems to be happening here (especially since other Chromium based browsers run perfectly fine, it’s literallyonly Vivaldi).
I don’t use Brave because they screwed me (banned my Brave Creators without them providing a reason) and I think I would disagree with their CEO on many points - including same sex marriage - but if I did this with every piece of software I use, then I wouldn’t be able to use a computer at all. Even if you go all open source, you’ll quickly find wild and weird people involved with these projects…
Firefox? I use it, but it’s a big org, one that Brave’s CEO even helped to create. If we dig enough and we’ll find dirt on people. And just one or two months ago, they displayed full window ads on Firefox.
My point is that if we do this with everyone or every project, then we’ll run out of software that is acceptable to use. If I’m using anything related with GNU, then I have to stop because of Richard Stallman’s controversies. Linux? Are they all nice people? I doubt it.
I’m not saying that people should use Brave - I certainly don’t use it - it’s just that if we have high bars for every piece of software we use, we’d run out of software to use (at least I would).
Prop 8 and peter tiel are far beyond “wild and weird”. You need to see some gray, there’s nuance you’re either missing or choosing to ignore and there isn’t the clear equivalence you suggest.
I know (hope) this is a joke but reading the article and many of the comments it makes me sad that software has become about concerns outside of software.
You can be a tap dancing leprechaun. Is the software decent?
The writer is proposing Vivaldi, a closed-source browser, as an alternative to Brave, which is free and open-source. I think a better alternative would be Ungoogled Chromium.
Sure, but Firefox uses a different engine. On my systems, I always have both: a Mozilla-based browser as primary and a Chromium-based browser as secondary. If a site doesn’t work on one, it’ll work on the other.
I’m against ungoogled-chromium. I used it for a while and it feels like someone took a sledgehammer and smashed up all the Google parts without cleaning up afterwards. I stopped using it mainly because of security concerns.
Here I express myself, Anyway articles, essays, wiki Etc. for me they should be less subjective, because it is material that the reader then makes an argument.
Objectivity in reporting is a nice goal when you’re trying to write objective journalism. But this dude clearly wrote an opinion piece. It literally says “you shouldn’t” in the headline. That sort of thing can’t be objective, and it would look embarrassing if it tried. Objectivity for objectivity’s sake regardless of context is not really sensible. What you’re asking for is a fact sheet, not something written by a person because that person believes a thing.
That being said, I’ll give it to you: it wasn’t an especially good op-ed piece. It would’ve been better if he elaborated some of the stuff he said. But that just means he’s got some work to do as a writer, not that his crime was ‘not being objective enough’.
Your argument is that because they’re holding flags it’s the same thing lmao? I assume you’re from the country where kids are forced to say a prayer to their countries flag every morning right? Idiot.
Sexual assualt/violence/rape of children is more frequently performed by the church and republican politicians than by trans people. Look up the numbers yourself. I know you won’t trust me if I post them.
Trans people pretty much just want to not be bothered, however they have to fight against people trying to make them not allowed to exist. If you and your group of people weren’t so obsessed with them, you’d likely never hear about them or from them.
Add comment