/t/ - Technology

Discussion of Technology

Index Catalog Archive Bottom Refresh
Mode: Reply

Max message length: 8000


Max file size: 32.00 MB

Max files: 5

Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more


(used to delete files and postings)


Remember to follow the rules

The backup domain is located at 8chan.se. .cc is a third fallback. TOR access can be found here, or you can access the TOR portal from the clearnet at Redchannit.

WebSockets Enabled! Threads should update live as posts are made. Please report any issues on >>>/site/1518

8chan.moe is a hobby project with no affiliation whatsoever to the administration of any other "8chan" site, past or present.

(642.83 KB 1138x1078 firefox.png)
(59.52 KB 256x256 pale_moon.png)
(13.26 KB 262x119 libre_js.png)
Browser and Internet Privacy Thread Anonymous 08/13/2020 (Thu) 06:48:58 No. 984
A place to shill for your favorite browsers & addons. Learn how to protect yourself from the botnet. What are your favorite addons and browsing tricks to protect your privacy? Share them here so we can all be a little safer. Browsers Chrome Chrome is somehow still in the lead due to sheer momentum, despite even the dumbest lusers cracking jokes about memory usage. Google has continued to abuse their position as the largest website and browser to force non-standards compliant changes to the way rendering works, generally to their benefit. Should be avoided at all costs. They track everything you do in some way. Chromium Even "de-Google'd" it still phones home and tracks your every move. Plus it gives them market share to bully smaller browsers and websites into complying with their standards. Avoid. Firefox Mozilla is pretty cucked and it's running on Rust these days, but it's a decent compromise between the modernity of Chrome and the standards compliance of something like Pale Moon. It's the closest you can get to a proper browser that's also updated regularly. Addons are worse now that they use Google's "web extensions" API, which is a downgrade from the Mozilla API and no more secure. But the whole "Quantum" thing has it flying, and they are better about standards compliance than Chrome is, and usually only break away because Chrome gives them no choice. Pale Moon The Gentooman's preferred choice, although some sites just don't play nice with it anymore. The last real holdout of old Gecko rendering. Has a diverse ecosystem, but it's basically the remnants of Firefox from yesteryear repackaged. Not bad if you can stand many sites not playing nice. Brave A cryptocurrency scam in browser form that's running modified Chrome underneath. Avoid. Lynx Text-mode browsing. Quality way to browse a surprising number of websites. Highly recommended. Unfortunately doesn't work well with LynxChan, which is ironic. Addons Block Ads uBlock Origin is pretty much uncontested. Be sure to avoid AdBlock Plus and uBlock, which are both sellouts. JavaScript LibreJS or uMatrix make it easy to manage and secure what scripts run in your browser and where page contests are loaded from. Canvas Defender' I use this to ward-off HTML5 canvas fingerprinting. It will return a randomize response to fingerprinting requests when it detects one. Decentraleyes Minimizes or blocks content loaded from CDNs, helping reduce the number of requests you need to make and preventing CDNs from violating your privacy. Even supports Pale Moon, so you know the developer has a good head on their shoulders. Disconnect A bit sketchy based on the website, but effectively works to block arbitrary cross-site scripts which ping Google, Facebook, etc. Helps prevent being tracked by these behemoths when sites use their embeds. Container Tabs A real killer feature that Firefox should have upstreamed instead of garbage like Pocket. Allows you to open tabs with a container for cookies. Instead of having to open private browsing to prevent Google from spying on your other cookies, you just put them into a containment tab. Problem solved. >But there are other ways to identify you! Correct, but these are increasingly becoming the most common. But the user agent string is a common giveaway, as is screen size, operating system, and available fonts. But there are mitigation techniques which can be applied, and having the above will still make it more difficult to track you. Keep in mind, the more people running these countermeasures, the more everyone begins to look the same. So shill them to your friends and family. It protects all of us.
(4.99 MB 475x267 78575878657.gif)
Are you kidding? Firefox is shit too. Every update they find new ways to prevent users from disabling updates and its notifications. Reminds me of fucking windows 10. Not only that, but their largest donator is actually Google and that's why it has it as its default search engine.
>>985 This, I've been using Firefox for years now and, while ultimately better than Chrome and "totally not Google-shit even though it's built on the engine that Google themselves develops", it's pretty terrible. Even the whole "it uses less RAM" has appeared to be a lie because, while yes, it's not opening a new pagefile for every single tab and extension, it's still loading shit across (by default) 8 different allocation processes and it has terrible optimization for releasing RAM that's really unnecessary. I mean, just stay in a YouTube tab for long enough switching between videos and it can easily take up 500MBs of RAM after a short while. So, speaking of such, what about Opera or Vivaldi? I've heard about... issues Opera has had regarding privacy concerns in the past, but they seem to be alright now, and Vivaldi was made by the guy who originally worked on Opera before they even had that whole "selling your data to China" thing. But I haven't done much research into either.
(549.36 KB 1024x768 opera-tan.jpg)
>>988 Opera has been based on Chromium for almost a decade, so it has the same issues as most Blink browsers. Vivaldi is also Chromium-based, but is more heavily modified. It's a shit situation all around. But I'd rather use Firefox with heavy modifications, or something like Pale Moon, than ever touch another Blink or Webkit browser. Why give Google the market share?
>>989 Yeah, that's pretty fucked then. Someone just needs to come in and give Google a run for their money. I don't care if it's some privacy-invading hog like what would happen if Facebook or Amazon got serious about making a browser, if it could get Google off their high horse where they don't have to worry about competition then it'd be nice, especially if it forced them into actually bettering their browser instead of the "updates" they make every so often. But sadly, I don't see that happening any time soon.
>>989 >>991 webengine/kit is essentially just blink without google shit instead it's apple shit basically all you gotta do is extend it's functionality a bit to get addon support and it'll out perform firefox. It doesn't take up a shit ton of ram. I believe this is what qutebrowser is trying to do. webkit is what's being used in suckless's surf browser, so it's simplicity has some merit. suckless is pretty extreme when it comes to minimalism All it needs is some better functionality. but if you don't give a shit about having ublock/umatrix support then it's pretty usable as is.
>>992 Well, aside from stuff like iPhones, Macs, etc. being shit with poor over-priced specs, Apple does make some pretty solid products, so, who knows? I'll wait on extension support though.
(55.38 KB 605x340 ClipboardImage.png)
>>991 >Someone just needs to come in and give Google a run for their money Who would do that? Apple has Safari already, and it's a broken piece of shit that doesn't support modern features. And WebKit is still a cousin of Blink. Other upstarts are Blink. Microsoft is the only third-party still trying to be in the game, and they've also given up and gone with Chromium. They could do what companies do with Linux, and put their team to work developing features for Firefox, but instead they chose to Fork Chromium. Browser market share is dire. Chrome has a majority on its own, plus its derivatives. Vivaldi and Brave tried to make companies that could fund themselves, and Brave is running a scam to do it. Having your entire corporation built around a fork of someone else's browser, and you only get a couple percent in market share? Nobody is investing in that.
>>984 Browsers based on Blink and Webkit spring up like mushrooms after rain, but why are there no Gecko-based browers? All we have a Firefox forks like Palemoon, but the issue with forks is that once they diverge far enough from upstream they become unmaintainable and a security nightmare. I wonder how hard it could be to create a browser that's just a sane GUI for Gecko. It should piggy-back on top of Mozilla for all the low-level stuff, and implement a clean and sensible GUI on top of that. If it can be done with Webkit and Blink, why not Gecko? Why Gecko instead of Blink and Webkit? Because if you use one of those websites will count your browser as Google Chrome or Safari, further increasing the marketshare of Google. >>988 >Vivaldi Proprietary garbage.
>>998 >Browser market share is dire Everything related to the web is completely and royally fucked and it should be nuked back to the stone age. >Having your entire corporation built around a fork of someone else's browser, and you only get a couple percent in market share? Nobody is investing in that. (((Waterfox))) got lucky in that department I guess.
>>1003 Waterfox had some promise. I never used it but it had a good niche. Too bad they got bought by an ad company. IceCat is the one option not mentioned, but since they only update maybe once every year or three it's kind of hard to recommend. But it's the most libre option on the market. It's too bad the FSF doesn't have the resources to maintain their own browser, or to build a dedicated IceCat team that can do regular releases.
(158.17 KB 645x317 hog.png)
>>1004 When I switched from Firefox 56 ESR to Waterfox I was so so happy. Firefox 56 had gotten so outdated that several webpages would outright not load properly, and with Waterfox I managed to maintain all my extensions and UI and even gained some new cool and actually useful features for the first time in a decade (for example, delayed video start if tab is not focused). I felt really betrayed when they sold out and with the mental gymnastics of the old owner to try to justify it.
>>1002 >but why are there no Gecko-based browers? Because Mozilla refuses to do anything with Gecko aside from using it as a background to their browser. At any point they could've stripped down their browser to make something like Chromium, or they could've made something like Electron so all those developers who want to make a cross-platforming software but don't do any design on it and just make a Chrome instance locked to a single site could've used it for their application instead of Electron, but nope, let's not do that.
>>1002 >>1009 There were Gecko-based browsers in the past. Galeon was one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galeon
>>1012 The continuous shilling of the same schizo blog for more than half a decade is proof that "trust, but verify" was nothing but a sad joke.
>>1013 There are citations all over that page. >is proof that "trust, but verify" was nothing but a sad joke. no u
>>1013 I do think Waterfox, especially now, is cucked and untrustworthy. Literally owned by a marketing firm; how sketchy is that? The blog is pure paranoia, though. Not every ping home is malicious, although minimizing them is good and telemetry is commonplace but upsetting. But it's hard to blame them, for example, grabbing a list of unsafe sites provided by Google. I'd like a way to disable that feature, but it's not phoning data to Google to scrape a provided list every browser uses now. >>1014 >There are citations all over that page To (((reddit))) posts, and their privacy policy, and other links that aren't helpful. The site connects dots that may or may not be there. Something helpful would be a dump of all telemetry from start-up, which can be captured using libpcap and then picked-apart. Based on the description, I would hazard a guess that Waterfox does everything Firefox does, possibly a little less, and that removing all of those features was too much effort so they just minimized their access and moved on. Not all of that stuff is harmful. There's a very real concern for data harvesting, but sites like this turn it into a joke. Mozilla, Google, or anyone else reading it will just shake their head because it reads like Roswell Incident writings. "Ah, the military showed up, so it must be aliens!". The normalization of data collection as a cover for harvesting personal data is a real concern, but sites like that don't help because they avoid the real issue (how commonplace CDNs are, how much the web infrastructure relies on big companies, how irresponsibly written most new features are because everyone is just making it up as they go and adoption matters more than quality engineering) and instead throws Waterfox under the bus for basically doing all the stuff Firefox does. It's a breach of their "we're more privacy-focused than Firefox" marketing, but honestly once you disable telemetry and install some add-ons Firefox is fine and reasonably secure. Trying to pick holes in their privacy strategy is a better bet, since they're upstream. Nothing in there looks like Waterfox' problem specifically, except that they promise to strip some of that out.
>>1011 Independent team that wasn't part of Mozilla and just a bunch of people working together on something. Still, sad that it ended that way, could've been a good alternative to all the "browsers" out now.
Mozilla having no answer to Electron after all these years is a huge blunder. They could work with any number of cross-platform GUI toolkit vendors to build a dead simple Gecko-based option, but they haven't. It's only allowed Chromium to become the standard for bloated "desktop" UIs. Absolutely terrible. And now their fallback is to turn themselves into a services company.
>>1014 >There are citations all over that page. We're are talking over a site that claims to have independently performed some tests via wireshark on some browser, yet for different browsers they do not perform the test themselves (which would take literally less than a minute) but rather link to another schizo blog. That's the main problem, plenty of anons simply look at the citations, think they seem legit, and don't even notice the glaring abnormalities. Then there's the fact that the schizo author thinks that someone disagreeing with them on the matter of privacy-friendly search engines must be a liar, the fact he takes Ungoogled Chromium claims at face value without a minimum of testing (he didn't even mention domain substitution), the equally lacking page on the Tor Browser (no mention of how NoScript works and its privacy implications, for example)... >>1016 >Literally owned by a marketing firm; how sketchy is that? Very sketchy, I agree with you on that. >I'd like a way to disable that feature Should be under Options - Security, unckeck both "Warn you about unwanted and uncommon software" and "Block dangerous and deceptive content", as that's how it was in Firefox, and IIRC it should be disabled by default anyways. >>1019 Mozilla is funded almost entirely by Google, take a guess as to why they didn't even try to compete with Electron.
(70.23 KB 581x335 chromebook.jpg)
>>1022 >Mozilla is funded almost entirely by Google, take a guess as to why they didn't even try to compete with Electron. Okay. I'm guessing it's because it wouldn't serve Mozilla's core mission and nobody was asking for it. I don't know how high you have to be to think that it's something to do with Google. Google doesn't care about Electron. Google has its own desktop application framework. It's called Chrome.
>>1023 I was the one who originally asked why they didn't answer Electron. I agree that being funded by Google is not the problem. But Mozilla needs to consider what their "core mission" is. And they are: their focus is shifting to offering services. They want to provide a VPN, news (Pocket), and possibly even e-mail and other common subscriptions with a "privacy focus". And I think it's doomed. Anyone caring about privacy already has niche providers like Mullvad or Protonmail. Anyone who doesn't has free webmail and a ton of overpriced VPNs to choose from. Mozilla's name is meaningless in this space. Their "core mission" is providing a platform-neutral, independent web rendering platform to as many users as possible so they have a truly open, free option which is standards-compliant. They're unable to do that when they don't have a majority of market share, especially since they have to play follow-the-leader to Chrome's autistic non-standard implementations. Even if Chrome and all the other browsers downstream died today, Electron would have to be maintained for embedded software well into the future. I have a feeling if Chrome does kill itself, Electron will be the IE6 equivalent for an extra decade after. Web standards changes will be halted because "Electron needs it to work this way". It's about market share and projecting dominance over standards. Plus it would have allowed income from offering support for the product directly. And while I personally like that Thunderbird uses a native GUI, they could have probably rewritten it on an Gecko-based Electron equivalent and pushed it as a stable local e-mail client for webmail. And if that took off, they would have a good reason to open their own privacy-oriented webmail service. The way they're going about this is all wrong. They want money to fund Firefox forever when all they had to do in the first place was not lose market share and to make bundling deals. Maybe if they'd been more aggressive, Edge would be Gecko-based.
Anybody else consider the possibility of offloading a bunch of shit the web browser usually does to a server? I don't know why I hadn't thought of it before, but there is a project I heard of that allows you to browse the modern web with old browsers that can't handle all the HTML5 bullshit or even older shit depending on how old of a browser you use. It's not very good, obviously, since it is limited to what those old browsers could support, but it does what it says. Here's the project I'm referring to: https://github.com/tenox7/wrp More importantly I think that idea has so much potential, but I'm not sure exactly what it could grow into. I just know it's paving the way to the fucking future. I can almost taste it. The freedom to use any browser from any device of any architecture running any operating system and still have all of the privacy features we need. The same useragent for everyone. Everybody connecting through the same server could potentially have the same exact rendering so nobody can be fingerprinted individually (strength in numbers). Content blocking done upstream so you could use a browser that doesn't support extensions if you had to. Or if you think having it prerender everything for you is a dead end, or you simply would want something a bit more individualized anyhow (not a bad idea, how can you trust one big man in the middle? and there would be less benefit to everyone running their own server in that case), then perhaps instead it could be something more inbetween than a full rendering proxy. Like say, it still outputs actual HTML but without the original javascript, then updates in real time, for anyone on a modern browser to take advantage of. Then the user could still inject custom CSS or run custom JS. Maybe custom JS can be optionally passed through somehow also to enable it to actually interact with the original unmodified page. Assets could be served from the server, obviously. Cached, and the server could even have a ridiculous amount of fonts and other shit packaged to deliver without it even having to hit up CDNs (Decentraleyes style). It would take a lot of brainstorming to come up with the best plan, but I think it's an excellent idea that could grow into something able to fucking kill these bloated unmaintainable monstrosities and better enable niche software and hardware to have a fighting chance again without completely having to abandoned most of the modern web or have extra hardware, or emulation/virtualization software, on hand when needed.
>>1016 >throws Waterfox under the bus for basically doing all the stuff Firefox does. yeah, so? If waterfox does everything firefox does what is the point of waterfox?
>>1023 >Okay. I'm guessing it's because it wouldn't serve Mozilla's core mission and nobody was asking for it. Technically true, as Mozilla's core mission is to make the higher ups richer than they already were. >Google doesn't care about Electron. Electron being chrome-based gives Google more power over web standards, and thus over the web as a whole. >>1076 >Anybody else consider the possibility of offloading a bunch of shit the web browser usually does to a server? It would be a security nightmare, it's akin to asking someone else to read a document for you while being completely unable to check if what they're saying is what's actually written on the doc: can't rely on digital signatures of any kind as by design you're modifying the data, can't even know you're actually talking with the right site and not a phishing one. By the way, that means zero privacy, the server needs to see every single element of the pages you visit in order to do its job. >Everybody connecting through the same server could potentially have the same exact rendering so nobody can be fingerprinted individually (strength in numbers). The server gets everyone's IP and history of requests, ah and it gets to keylog every single input sent too. >Content blocking done upstream so you could use a browser that doesn't support extensions if you had to. Content blocking also means sites the server doesn't like, such as 8chan perhaps. Also, nothing stops the server from blocking the original ads and replacing them with its own. >inb4 but I'll self host Congratulations, now you're running a normal browser (and all the javascript on the pages you visit) purely to feed HTML to your hipster browser, I guess it could make some sense if your server is a lot more powerful than the device with the hipster browser but even then it seems pointlessly convoluted as you'll gain no privacy or security benefits. If all of this wasn't retarded enough, your proposal means any attack or malfunction affecting a single such proxy server would affect many users, making Cloudflare even more of a powerhouse than it already is.
>>1076 Won't work. Transfer of HTML, CSS, and JS, even on a large site with dozens of scripts and style sheets, is probably a few kilobytes on average and a few megabytes at worst. Keep in mind major vendors value page loading speed. The problem is JS and HTML5 have been allowed to bloat the browser at runtime But the amount of bandwidth you'd need to render a page would be, well, a video stream. You'll use more bandwidth on a page in a single second than your entire browsing session would have taken. Plus security issues as >>1080 mentioned. I am curious, what is your set-up that you can't render HTML5? You are probably better-off just relying on sites that work and finding replacements for those that don't. (((They))) don't care a lick about you or your privacy or your CPU time. Your only option is to avoid them. The web is shit because it was designed to work for static pages. There's no getting around it. You either build static pages for the user or you make them bear the cost of dynamic pages.
>>1079 Being able to use XUL add-ons (in the Classic version) and having a bit less bloat than Firefox (both Classic and Current).
>>1076 >>1081 You don't have to serve the graphical representation of a page. You can render it on a server and send the client a simplified version. This is how Opera Mini works. I assume this is compatible with the mobile version of some otherwise javascript heavy sites like Facebook.
>>1083 It doesn't "render" the page for you, it grabs the page and then does processing to strip-out stuff and compress the data. That way you use less bandwidth. It's a special use case for phones that was needed 10 years ago when 3G was slow as hell and everyone had data caps. It won't do shit for your privacy; in fact, it's a man-in-the-middle.
>>1084 Opera Mini is absolutely does server-side rendering. Not rendering to a graphics buffer but rendering to a static DOM. Today it's a browser for hardware that can't run Blink comfortably, but originally it was for feature phones and things like the Wii. The compression feature predated this IIRC and is 100% orthogonal. And yeah, there's nothing private about letting someone else run your web browser.
>>1080 I was hoping for constructive criticism, not just criticism. Of course my suggestions need to be refined, not accepted blindly. They have many problems. So start brainstorming any time. >hipster browser Great, so you blindly accept the need to run somebody else's web rendering engine that you likely have no control over just to browse the internet. Fuck off. If the Linux/GNU/BSD ecosystem goes to shit so bad that you need out, or if something better comes along but nobody else but a small niche wants to move on, what browser are you going to use for web 2.0 shit that doesn't run? Write your own? Port Firefox all by yourself, then be unable to maintain it? Good luck with that. >>1081 >I am curious, what is your set-up that you can't render HTML5? You didn't read my whole post, did you. I'm running Pale Moon, Firefox, and Tor Browser. I have no problem with HTML5, although I avoid web 3.0 js shit whenever possible. The problem is I want to liberate people from the same 5 web browsers, the same operating systems, and the same hardware simultaneously and enable people to run what they fucking want without needing massive amounts of developer time like what a modern full web browser requires. >first half Indeed, doing all the rendering for you is a bad idea, as is sharing proxy servers between a bunch of people, especially if it's some kikes you don't know like Cuckflare. But there is more that can be done with the idea, I'm sure. I think streaming what is still regular HTML (a modified DOM) is a good starting point, because pre-rendering everything to png image maps like the web rendering proxy is a retarded shitshow even if it was a great proof-of-concept and something nice for people to be able to run those ancient legacy browsers. Since I'm not so concerned with legacy shit, but primarily with enabling more new web browsers to spring up without collapsing over the massive workload, doing it that way isn't necessary. Unfortunately, yes, security would be difficult to maintain, even ignoring the sharing a server aspect and going with selfhosted. The web is a massive security clusterfuck of itself, so there's no getting around that. >>1084 >>1085 It's a great idea, I didn't realize it had been done. Selfhosting a more mature, privacy and security focused, free software spiritual successor of sorts would eliminate the problem with letting someone else run your browser, and the browser you did decide to use could still have features of its own. I just don't see for instance Pale Moon getting ported to >ARM (somebody tried before, it very quickly died) >POWER9 >RISC-V >Haiku >any other nonstandard operating system Imagine having to run your browser of choice in an emulator. While that would certainly be a safe way to go seeing as how the web is full of spyware, it would be a real pain in the ass and you're then relying on 2 bloated monstrosities, a browser and an emulator. Emulators can fuck up too, and a web browser would need higher accuracy to emulate properly for sure. I've had issues experimenting with running nwjs HTML5 games in wine. It may work now, not sure, but the point is how complicated this all is. Of course, wine isn't an emulator, so I imagine there would be even more fuckery based on previous attempts at trying to run e.g. Windows in a virtual machine without virtualization extensions (so interpreter mode). I don't doubt not many people care. But I think it is important to have the freedom of choice for when we need it. Having to run an x86 server that renders shit to a less complicated DOM for the shittier DIY web browser you're running doesn't sound so bad, the same way running Windows on an airgapped machine that you only boot up when you want to play a game that doesn't run in wine or have a native Linux port doesn't sound so bad. So I'm just spitballing here hoping other people could help come up with better ideas, and it gets the idea into a bunch of anons' minds so that maybe one of us at some point take it further. I'm certainly considering a bunch of shit I've seen posted here before (well, not "here" yet, but back on 8chan).
>>1086 >I was hoping for constructive criticism, not just criticism. You received constructive criticism, if you don't want to be told that your idea is inherently insecure then don't blindly post your inherently insecure ideas and learn2security. >Great, so you blindly accept the need to run somebody else's web rendering engine Your entire idea relies on that, with the server needing a modern web rendering engine to do its job properly. That's why it's hipster, you get to look cool but you're not actually doing anything different or worthwile. >If the Linux/GNU/BSD ecosystem goes to shit so bad that you need out Windows exists, if the FOSS ecosystem somehow self-destructs that's evidence their ideas were completely wrong, especially in regards to robustness and cooperation. >if something better comes along but nobody else but a small niche wants to move on Then it's either not actually better, or better for specific things and you can use it too for that. >what browser are you going to use for web 2.0 shit that doesn't run? Let's say it once more: your idea relies on a server running a modern web browser. Your idea doesn't actually let you avoid certain browsers or operating systems, it only sweeps them under the carpet so you can pretend you're not completely relying on them. You're a complete dumbass with a half baked idea and an ego the size of Jupiter, fuck off.
Are there any minor players attempting to create a browser that isn't bloated or using the large hardware overhead every piece of modern software operates under? Are we doomed to suffer with incompetent browsers? Why can't someone cobble together an open sores browser from the remnants of presto after Opera jumped ship to blink?
>>1142 >web browser >not bloated This is a self contradiction. In order to run the absolute bloated cancer known as modern web, you need an equally bloated browser or else it can't run 95% of websites. You can't just "make a browser" for the same reason.
>>1142 pretty much this >>1144 There will always be some absurd requirement for new webbrowsers to comply to in order to run literally any modern website or legacy site. The state of modern web revolves around the dumbass backward design of supporting websites instead of websites complying with non-shit standards. Can't risk breaking amazon, facebook, or google. Otherwise all the normalfags might throw a tantrum.
>>1142 I think only netsurf is serious about that.
>>1147 >Can't risk breaking amazon, facebook, or google. Otherwise all the normalfags might throw a tantrum. Otherwise you won't have an userbase, you dumb sperg: especially as those companies have tendrils everywhere so their stuff breaking will affect a lot of seemingly unrelated sites.
>>1142 There's NetSurf, but they made some bad choices years ago and have to redesign their whole engine if they want JS to run. Additionally Andreas Kling, the fag from 4cuck is writing a browser from the ground up to go with SerenityOS. Judging by the amount of contributors and the weird mix of values (I write my OS in C++ and JS in the browser is a priority yet I value speed and security), I think this project the best chance of being somewhat competitive to the bloat giants. btw if you need to use bloat, but don't want bloat on your compootie wootie, there's always this https://github.com/tenox7/wrp
>>1154 WRP is a cool toy but nothing more, and you completely misunderstood how it works.
>>1154 >WRP Nice.
>>985 >Every update they find new ways to prevent users from disabling updates and its notifications. Stop using Windows.
>>1004 Someone updates Icecat, at least on Arch. The current version is the same as Firefox ESR.
(28.03 KB 698x284 Capture2.PNG)
A new browser based on pale moon. There is no version for bsd or linux yet. The maintainer said they will appear soon. https://lolifoxbrowser.moe/
>>984 Wait, what is wrong with Rust?
>>984 Wait, what is wrong with Rust?
(256.16 KB 1024x984 rustfu.jpg)
>>1193 You wouldn't know unless you got to know her better. Rust might not be as pretty as the other girls. But she's always there for me, to help me through my mistakes. C++ and her older sister C are just abusive.
>>1193 >CB6000 >when the HTv3 exists Shiggy diggy. Also I code in C++ and ASM, but nothing too serious.
>"privacy"? there is a pill for that. the thread
>>1288 >still shilling it Kill yourself, schizo
>>1291 what's so bad about it?
(270.09 KB 1200x1200 b.png)
>>1297 Everything, the inconsistent testing methodologies in particular are so bad you should assume everything written there was made up.
>>1197 Why do you know so much about cuck cages? >>1196 > she
>>1184 is this bull? the site won't load for me.
(113.85 KB 1071x831 1599053816613.jpg)
(142.69 KB 1438x510 1599053998880.jpg)
>>1575 I found this on Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20200901004144/https://lolifoxbrowser.moe/ The links in the archive still seem to work, in case you want to try it. A bit of research shows that it was created by a random 4chan /bant/ user who also posted it on an obscure imageboard: https://archive.nyafuu.org/bant/thread/11169853 http://tohno-chan.com/cr/res/3119.html Also I found a couple of screenshots in a random 4chan /v/ thread.
>>1577 Thanks lad.
(54.57 KB 217x190 links2.png)
>Pale Moon >The Gentooman's preferred choice Sure, the Gentooman's preferred choice for a browser that supports CSS and Javascript. But the real Gentooman's preferred choice is Links2 with -g option and with fake firefox mode enabled.
(40.34 KB 300x270 thought-for-the-day.jpg)
>>984 A good privacy (and security) tip is to run any browser you use in a sandboxing software like bubblewrap. There's also firejail, but I don't recommend it due to it's complexity and the fact that bubblewrap still achieves decent enough sandboxing for most use-cases. You can invoke bubblewrap in a terminal by typing bwrap. You can also get a list of options with the --help flag. The Arch wiki has a decent, brief tutorial on it too. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Bubblewrap
>"""Privacy""" thread into the trash it goes >Schizo thread into the trash it goes >no useful advice how to run a jew nigger cock free browser (because there is none) into the trash it goes >They track everything you do in some way. case in point. this is why hapas are superior to wh*tes
I use Brave because I consider every browser to be insecure. Might as well get lolcoins while I shitpost and browse the net
(23.73 KB 300x240 bas-logo-300w.png)
Is Basilisk any good for security in comparison to Pale Moon? I was thinking of using of using it since it might be able to support KeepassXC-Browser, along with actual privacy-enhancing addons.
>>1683 Put nanochang back online and then fuck off back there h*panigger.
>>1685 Basilisk is Pale Moon but forked from a slightly less outdated version of Firefox (I think it's from before Firefox started moving onto WebExtensions), and while Moonchild claims it exists to test and develop shit that later is ported to PM it can be used without problem. It's biggest advantage over Pale Moon is a slightly better compatibility with websites (webcomponents and similar shit are a no-no, tho), other than that they're pretty much the same.
>>1689 How's WaterFox?
>>1690 Owned by an advertising firm.
>>1690 Waterfox has two versions. The Classic version basically is Firefox 56 with continuous backported security patches. It supports XUL add-ons and most WebExtension add-ons, and has basic multiprocess support. The Current version is based on Firefox 68 ESR and just like the Classic version it gets security patches. This version gets it's Firefox base updated from time to time, and because it uses post v57 versions of Firefox it's only compatible with WebExtensions (but on the other side it has full multiprocess support). In both cases the main differences with Firefox are the removal of "bloat" like Pocket and some of Mozilla's experiments (like Qliqz), some pro-privacy tweaks, and a couple of cosmetic changes. It must be mentioned that the project was bought by System1, and ad company that also bought Startpage, and while they haven't interfered in the development of the browser there's still a chance of it being compromised in the future. I personally use its Classic version because it has better add-on and site compatibility than Pale Moon while having less undesirable features than Firefox, but I may drop it if something shady added by System1 is found on it.
>>1692 Personally I'm very weary of the fact that System1 owns Waterfox. If you start Wireshark, then open Waterfox for the first time, you can see that it connects to Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager. Have a look at this article http://spywaredrcdg5krvjnukp3vbdwiqcv3zwbrcg6qh27kiwecm4qyfphid.onion/articles/waterfox.html Clearnet mirror in case you're dumb enough to browse imageboards on the clearnet: https://spyware.neocities.org/articles/waterfox.html
>>1712 >If you start Wireshark, then open Waterfox for the first time, you can see that it connects to Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager Not that anon and while I can't try a new install I just closed my browser and opened it again and it didn't connect to any Google domains. I also remember doing experiments previously to try to validate what that site said about Waterfox and never could. Not that I trust Waterfox that much either but that page peeves me a great deal given how badly it's written, how inconsistent it is, how I can't reproduce the things it says, and how popular it's gotten.
>>1714 >while I can't try a new install Why not? Just remove and reinstall. Have wireshark open and sniffing packets while you do that. Then analyze the packets afterwards. >Pro Wireshark Tip: Go to Edit -> Preferences -> Name Resolution and make sure 'Resolve Network (IP) Addresses' is ticked. That'll make it a lot easier to see what domains Waterfox is connecting to.
(81.94 KB 300x340 bro.png)
>>1684 >I consider every browser insecure, so I picked a really insecure one. Bro. Why?
>>1742 He wants "lolcoins", whatever the fuck that is.
>>1735 >Why not? Just remove and reinstall Because it's my main browser and I don't want to have to save and restore all my bookmarks, extensions, configurations, and whatnot. I don't see it connecting to anything shady when I inspect the traffic right now so I think it's good enough. Have you been able to reproduce it? >Pro Wireshark Tip: Go to Edit -> Preferences -> Name Resolution and make sure 'Resolve Network (IP) Addresses' is ticked. I didn't know about this, that's a pretty handy tip, thanks! I was filtering the packets by DNS and TCP with SYN flag active and inspecting the flow. >>1743 Brave has this scheme where they give you some sort of crypto currency of theirs when you use their browser and see their ads or something like that.
>>1747 I wonder how much money the Brave devs make from those ads.
Why are browser spell checkers always so fucking retarded? They're all missing like half the words in the english dictionary. I keep thinking I'm fucking retarded and have to look up words only to find they're real words I'm spelling fine and the spell check is just brain dead.
>>1749 Brave Rewards are useless. I wonder if anyone actualy seriously uses it.
>>1747 And Brave's cryptocurrency scheme is a failure. Few, if any use it. I use Brave on mobile as an alternative web browser since it has built in support for ad blocking but otherwise, it's meh.
>>1192 Rust is an abomination and deserves to die.
>>1749 Enough to at least justify a development team I guess.
Pozilla transferred ownership/hosting of the Servo bowser engine to the Linux foundation. Is that bad?
>>1805 >trade pozzed foundation for another pozzed foundation nothing will change.
>>1196 C++ has always been a lady to me, but I've also always beat her with the violence she demanded back in '03.
(3.31 KB 45x49 darkness.png)
Whatever happened to Coincidence Detector? I tried downloading it again and it's not working. Think glowniggers whacked the devs?
>>1791 The number of fags I've seen who say they use Brave leads me to believe it has a sizeable user count, and a lot of them probably buy into the scheme. Even if they take a loss after ad revenue, they can probably talk some investors into keeping them alive for some time based on the number of installs. >>1805 It means Rust's single successful project, the one it was developed for, won't die when Mozilla an heros themselves over the next few years. And it might spread Rust's pozload to the Linux kernel, which is the last thing we need.

Quick Reply

no cookies?