Quantum kicks ass

63 risposte [Ultimo contenuto]
Jabjabs
Offline
Iscritto: 07/05/2014

It also solves a lot of security issues that plagued the old extension system.

Pizzaboy2017
Offline
Iscritto: 11/28/2017

What do you guys think about BS that mozilla pulled by installing an addon without the users consent? I was just in the process of fully switching to Firefox - despite knowing that they were basically just the lesser evil. I figured as long as the product was good, and I could configure my browser with privacy in mind, Id give it a shot. Well they are showing thier true colors - I will not be using firefox anymore.

Whats the next best alternative?
Waterfox?
Icecat?
Pale Moon?
Vivaldi?

And what do you think about Brave? I kinda get the same feel about Brave that I do about Mozilla.

loldier
Offline
Iscritto: 02/17/2016

Pale Moon binaries are proprietary. Why not use Seamonkey if you are happy with an older design and a more traditional appearance.

Dillo, Netsurf... There's a whole bunch of browsers out there to choose from.

Pizzaboy2017
Offline
Iscritto: 11/28/2017

When researching FOSS browsers, you get back firefox, chromium, etc - which arent totally FOSS.

Why seamonkey over the other ones listed? Are they not totally free? Which ones of the ones I listed are FOSS?

chaosmonk

I am a member!

I am a translator!

Offline
Iscritto: 07/07/2017

If your only problem with Firefox is its addon policies, Abrowser is the most similar alternative that addresses that. The version of Abrowser in the Trisquel 8 repository has already been updated to version 57.

Icecat would be a good option if you would like some additional privacy features and don't mind that it's based on an older version of Firefox.

However, anonymity is a prerequisite for privacy. Use Tor Browser if you are truly concerned for your privacy.

Pizzaboy2017
Offline
Iscritto: 11/28/2017

I guess my biggest requirement for a browser is that its completely FOSS, and doesn't have any proprietary code built into it. So something like Pale Moon is out for me.

Tor was just too slow last time I used it. I am fine with some tracking as long as I consent to it. Im worried about code I cant see, and it behaving like Firefox just did.

Maybe Icecat is the best option for me.

J.B. Nicholson-Owens
Offline
Iscritto: 06/09/2014

name at domain wrote:
> What do you guys think about BS that mozilla pulled by installing an
> addon without the users consent?
While I can understand that this was not handled well in terms of public
relations, I think it's mostly a manufactured outrage (an excuse to be
righteously indignant over something relatively minor) for those who don't
look at the issue in terms of software freedom.

I think you'll find that the browsers with the most serious focus on
privacy (such as TorBrowser) still build on some variant of Firefox
(Firefox ESR, if I recall correctly). There's good reason for that and you
should consider that before you carry out your decision to not use Firefox
anymore.

> I was just in the process of fully switching to Firefox - despite
> knowing that they were basically just the lesser evil. I figured as long
> as the product was good, and I could configure my browser with privacy
> in mind, Id give it a shot.
You're not going to get that capability with any nonfree software. Respect
for privacy requires free software.

> Well they are showing thier true colors - I will not be using firefox
> anymore.
I don't understand how "true colors" is being defined here. True colors is
set by one instance where a long-standing free software web developer
distributes additional free software that does something you don't like?
This seems indistinguishable from ignoring years of free
software-respecting history.

Let's not forget that all Firefox users still get their software freedom
respected with Firefox -- one could choose to inspect the code, remove
objectionable code, distribute the result (to help one's community), and
encourage others to use that variant instead of the upstream code. If any
nonfree browser distributor did what Mozilla did, users of that browser
wouldn't have these freedoms to help themselves fix the problem; they'd
have to wait for the very party that treated them badly to fix that problem
(and always wonder if there was other objectionable code remaining).

SuperTramp83

I am a translator!

Offline
Iscritto: 10/31/2014

No addon was ever installed here and that's because the relevant feature was disabled here so that shit would not work...
There are many websites dealing with FF antifeatures or security or privacy issues but really I think all you need is this one user.js file (and noscript)..

https://github.com/pyllyukko/user.js/

Alij
Offline
Iscritto: 05/07/2012
SuperTramp83

I am a translator!

Offline
Iscritto: 10/31/2014

Tx, Alij, will do.

J.B. Nicholson-Owens
Offline
Iscritto: 06/09/2014

I wrote:
> While I can understand that this was not handled well in terms of public
> relations, I think it's mostly a manufactured outrage (an excuse to be
> righteously indignant over something relatively minor) for those who don't
> look at the issue in terms of software freedom.

https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/update-looking-glass-add/ has Mozilla's
response to the issue I think is the topic of this subthread -- the Looking
Glass add-on.

In that post, Mozilla says that the user has to:

1. Enable the Looking Glass add-on.
2. Visit a website which will use the Looking Glass add-on.

in order for this add-on to do anything that reveals user data:

Quoting Mozilla's blog post above:
> Fans of the show enabled this game in Firefox by turning on the “Looking
> Glass” add-on effect via preferences setting. When enabled, and the user
> navigated to Mr. Robot’s ARG page, a clue necessary to advance the
> puzzle would be revealed. When enabled, the add-on would also invert
> text from a list of words related to the shows themes, throughout the
> web for a few seconds.
>
> Instead of giving users the choice to install this add-on, we initially
> pushed an update to Firefox that installed the “Looking Glass” add-on
> for English speaking users. This add-on was installed and set to ‘OFF’
> and made no changes in the user experience unless it was explicitly
> turned on by a user, but it was added. Even when turned on no user data
> was collected or shared.
One might wonder how this situation with Looking Glass is significantly
different from other users who see some feature that allegedly requires the
user do something to activate it before it has any potential to do
something bad. For instance, users who post anywhere on behalf of some
nonfree software insecurity and point out something like saying "things
aren't so bad because the user has to do X, Y, and Z before that insecurity
will do anything against the interests of that user".

Here's how Mozilla's Looking Glass feature is different: software freedom.

The Looking Glass add-on is, as far as I know, free software. Therefore in
the Looking Glass case we can inspect the add-on's source code to see how
it actually behaves and compare that with Mozilla's description. We can
inspect Firefox's source code and compare that to Mozilla's description. We
thus have what we need to reach a defensible conclusion based on what the
relevant code actually does.

In any case involving nonfree software, users can only guess what causes an
insecurity to manifest, or how the system will divulge sensitive data, or
open a backdoor to the system, or whatever else malware can do. Making such
guesses (regardless of the degree of testing) is indistinguishable from
making excuses for proprietors based on one's ignorance of what triggers
the malware; in other words, carrying a proprietor's water. Testing (no
matter how thorough) is never complete without code analysis because for
all anyone knows there are factors to trigger the malware that went
untested (or are no longer testable).

So even though Mozilla apparently won't champion this on the basis of
software freedom (they are an "open source" organization and as such won't
champion software freedom for its own sake or the underlying ethics behind
the free software movement), so long as Mozilla is distributing free
software to its users this is true: software freedom is the critical
difference between making excuses for proprietors when those proprietors
release untrustable software, and a free software developer releasing
software users are free to run, inspect, share, and modify.

calher

I am a member!

Offline
Iscritto: 06/19/2015

On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 16:35 +0100, name at domain wrote:
> What do you guys think about BS that mozilla pulled by installing an addon
> without the users consent? I was just in the process of fully switching to
> Firefox - despite knowing that they were basically just the lesser evil. I
> figured as long as the product was good, and I could configure my browser
> with privacy in mind, Id give it a shot. Well they are showing thier true
> colors - I will not be using firefox anymore.
>
> Whats the next best alternative?
> Waterfox?

Waerfox has freedom issues.

> Icecat?

IceCat is good.

> Pale Moon?

This has freedom issues.

> Vivaldi?

This is proprietary software. Do not use it.

>
> And what do you think about Brave? I kinda get the same feel about Brave
> that I do about Mozilla.

This has freedom issues, because it contains Chromium code, which itself
has freedom issues.

funkymarxist
Offline
Iscritto: 12/16/2017

I have also installed FF Quantum recently and it is really great in terms of speed and new features but I came across some really sad news about Mozilla. They are implementing DRM on videos played with their browser, also they are spying on the users, removing people from the rise up mail server if they don't agree with Mozilla's political views.

http://lunduke.com/2017/12/17/mozilla-is-not-trustworthy/

https://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-holds-its-nose-and-supports-drm-video-in-firefox/