/tech/ - Technology

What are we going to do now, fossbros?

You're just misunderstanding that means. It's merely a formality explaining what is required for the browser to function.

>>28587
the browser has functioned for 11 years without giving mozilla rights to your data but now it's required to function?

>>629457
this is NOT the best post this asshole has ever made

>>28586
Trying out konqueror, my router got unplugged recently so it's gonna take a few days for the connection to be stable enough to give a fair test.

This seems like lawsuit territory tbh.

What alternatives are the best in the current year btw?

>>28589
why did mods remove my post? is violence against the rules? anyway i said something along the lines of "im going to skin mozilla shareholders alive and cook them with a blowtorch"

damn mods always remove my gems.

The answer has been Librewolf for five years now anons, step your game up.

>>28592
I'm pretty sure violence is a crime on all penal codes of all countries on this planet

>>28594
im not actually doing violence by writing such things, are we reddit now?

LibreWolf has been good for me so far. It's based on Firefox, but much more secure.

>>28593
>>28596
if firefox really goes down this path i'll be using abrowser or iceweasel

>>28595
uh I didn't see what you posted
>>28597
Iceweasel is just firefox ESR without non-free blobs

if this is real then it's probably CIA forcing mozilla and keeping the company quiet with a non disclosure agreement

>>28598
>uh I didn't see what you posted
<something along the lines of "im going to skin mozilla shareholders alive and cook them with a blowtorch"

>Iceweasel is just firefox ESR without non-free blobs
would that not solve the problem? or is their still ways for mozilla to fuck me over?

>>28600
since these changes(if real) are licensed on the MPLnot my little pony, lol(100% sure of it) and thus technically "free/libre", iceweseal wouldn't bother removing it except for code under proprietary licenses. but librewolf and the Tor browser(if people bother using the Tor browser without Tor) will remove that though

>>28585
>nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to use that information
God, are they gonna start using AI sloppa? Fuck that.
What browser am I supposed to use if that happens?

>>28602
maybe librewolf or elinks

Recently been pissed at firefox for refusing to implement disable-output-escahing in it's XSLT parser, so people that use it for their RSS feeds have to choose between looking good in browser and shit in the RSS reader, or adding the CDATA tag the RSS readers expect and having to unescape it with javascript.
I hope whatever comes next has sensible XSLT support.

>>28604
I hate how they disabled the ability to turn off auto-redirects :| what is the point except strip my power and give it to any random server? wtf

>whatever comes next
gotta wait till 2050

gooners on suicide watch

>>28606
incomprehensible rule. christo-fascists will defend.

prudes must be sexually re-educated.

>>28608
Does it have uMatrix?

I maintain my own fork of the arkenfox configuration, where disk caches, sessionstore and badly performing multiprocessing crap like fission are disabled for example, Because i was too lazy it into to make a user.js, i have been copying a single, >90M profile for the last few years though.

>>28608
this will be me soon… i wish "librewolf" had a cooler sounding name though.

>>28609
It supports all the same plugins, so yeah but gotta install it first.

>>28606
holy fuck the absolute state

>>28611
What about GNU Icecat?

>>28597 (me)
>>28614

oh, i didn't know it was still maintained, if there is icecat why on earth do we need or have librewolf?

>>28611
Libre is kinda lame as a word tbh

>>28614
I remember liking it but haven't tried it in a while.

why is the TOS more invasive than the Chrome TOS. Chat is Mozilla stupid?

>>28588
Literally nothing changed

>>28615
strictly speaking there are three major, mutually incompatible forks of current mainline firefox
>gnu icecat
<tries to make firefox compatible with the mission of the fsf
<privacy is a focus
<ships with librejs
<regularly updates to a recent esr but no binaries since 2019
>tor browser
<advertized for browsing privately over tor
<extensive patchset for exploit mitigation and anti-fingerprinting
<weird insistence on using noscript
<spreads fud about changing anything from their stock configuration
>librewolf
<devs advertise it as a jumping off point for personal hardening
<ubo as a sensible default adblock
<seems to cherry-pick patches from tor
<idk

I suppose if the point of Icecat is for it to be a libre Firefox then it still has this retarded new ToS

Personally I recommend LibreWolf. Ive used it before. If youre used to Firefox and someone goes behind your back and swaps it for LibreWolf and changes the icons, good chance you wouldnt notice

>>28623
*and re-enable webgl, because stuff like Pony.Town and JanusWeb need that.

>Icecat is dated and breaks most sites with it's addons.
>LibreWolf defaults to light mode and a few other complains ive heard and the dev team is full of idpol which often can lead to inferior development
>Mullvad is Tor browser without Tor preconfigured as such.
>Tor basically gets you flagged as a tor user and under more suspicion for surveillance unfortunately unless you hide you're using it which i heard there is ways to disguise it as ordinary https traffic.
That's just the privacy browsers. Other than that there is also Zen and Floorp.
>>28619
> why is the TOS more invasive than the Chrome TOS. Chat is Mozilla stupid?
because they are more honest. This is how all browsers that use certain features work. Nothing stops you from just going to about:config and change all the different servers Firefox connects to for updates, geolocation, and website security checks etc or turning features off entirely. Firefox also introduced something they collect your data to anonymize it from advertisers which you can opt out of entirely. Do none of you even know how to use a computer?

>>28627
>the dev team is full of idpol which often can lead to inferior development
stop eating up the /pol/ shit on /g/

>>28627
>which often can lead to inferior development
you just pulled that out your ass.

>>28628
tbh the freedesktop coc situation with vaxry was questionable (and probably played out to the detriment of wlroots), but it was less le woke idpoleristas and more gnome hr people doing publicity control

>>28627
>>LibreWolf defaults to light mode
resistFingerprinting is the culprit, I've been using it for a few days and most stuff that relies on js canvas is broken (qr code generation, pasting images from clipboard, animations), and a bunch of site preferences are broken because of anti-fingerprinting stuff lmao

>>28630
redhat*
there us a big difference between devs simply not being chuds (librewolf) and the mentally ill redhat company, as big as to make the equivalence disingenuous. those guys and the gnome foundation are what cointelpro would look like if applied to the open source community

>>28632
you can disable the canvas spoofing thing - for some reason chinese websites love using the canvas for literally everything. personally I prefer the light mode

>>28628
>stop eating up the /pol/ shit on /g/
I don't even use 4chan. I saw examples elsewhere and made my own judgement call. It's not anywhere as bad as some make out though.

>>28629
> you just pulled that out your ass.
I don't mean that things always are bad at all times I am suggesting projects seem more likely to end as result of their over politicizing because it chases away would be new developers and takes away from their time actually programming spending it arguing over petty bullshit instead.

>>28632
> resistFingerprinting is the culprit, I've been using it for a few days and most stuff that relies on js canvas is broken (qr code generation, pasting images from clipboard, animations), and a bunch of site preferences are broken because of anti-fingerprinting stuff lmao
Makes sense. I've discovered the hard way you shouldn't combine canvas spoofing with a user agent switcher that cycles through different agents periodically. It causes most websites to think your account was hijacked through a cookiejacking attack or something and it's near impossible to get them to let you get your account back.

>>28628
You can't seriously with a straight face say the devs are not deeply steeped in idpol. Make sure to read the comments from the devs. It's not that bad though since it doesnt seem too frequent.
https://codeberg.org/librewolf/issues/issues/1977 https://codeberg.org/librewolf/issues/issues/1978

>>28644
How does your links prove that it has let to "inferior development"?

>>28644
>They didn}t rename "master" to "slaveowner" to be a contrarian reeee
/g/ perpetually lives in 2016 in every aspect of life.

>>28647
I was speaking in general terms. I already clarified myself I am speaking about the fate of such projects long term run into issues with needless drama and chasing away potential maintainers and developers. The liberal idpolers aren't as bad as the rightoid ones though who I do not trust at all for them to be honest, but still.

>>28648
No one said that or implied it especially not me. Touch grass.

>>28654
>examples of "deeply steeped in idpol":
>(locked) bad faith issue to bring up the master to main renaming, left open since it's technically a matter of standard compliance rather than idpol.
>(locked) bad faith request to add a code of conduct, turned down for the boilerplate reasons that a code of conduct would be turned down: that any of the sensible reasons for having one are a given, and having one gives opportunities for loopholes. Kept open in case they change their minds.

They're doing fine, and those two things–CoC's and the main naming thing–are shit that only /g/ users care about.

>>28654
bro just admit that you were wrong

which one of you imbeciles is "rkrisztian". rehashing 7 months old discussion on minor technical changes is wrecker behavior and it's worse and more disruptive than the person which requested renaming "master" to begin with lol

>>28661
not him but
>NOOOOOOOOOOO STOP NECROING
has always been funny to me.

>>28661
They are wrecker.

So… did anything come out of this? Just when I was trying to stop using Tor for everything.

>>28593
>>28596
>>28608
Isn't Librewolf just a glorified user.js?

>>28621
All forks besides Librewolf are unmaintained memes.

It got updated.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/faq/


It seems like every company on the web is buying and selling my data. You’re probably no different.

Mozilla doesn’t sell data about you (in the way that most people think about “selling data“), and we don’t buy data about you. Since we strive for transparency, and the LEGAL definition of “sale of data“ is extremely broad in some places, we’ve had to step back from making the definitive statements you know and love. We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP).
Wait, so how do you make money?

Mozilla is not your average organization. Founded as a community open source project in 1998, Mozilla is a mission-driven organization working towards a more healthy internet. The majority of Mozilla Corporation’s revenue is from royalties earned through Firefox web browser search partnerships and distribution deals around the world. You can learn more about how we make money in our annual financial report.
Okay, those first few were softballs. What data do you collect?

Mozilla does collect a limited set of data by default from Firefox that helps us to understand how people use the browser. You can read more about that in our privacy notice and read the full documentation for that data collection. We also make our documentation public so that anyone can verify what we say is true, tell us if we need to improve, and have confidence that we aren’t hiding anything.
Do you collect more data in pre-release versions of Firefox?

Sort-of. In addition to the data described above, we receive crash and error reports by default in pre-release versions of Firefox.

We may also collect additional data in pre-release for one of our studies. For example, some studies require what we call “browsing data”, which may include URLs and other information about certain websites. This helps us answer specific questions to improve Firefox, such as, how to better integrate popular websites in specific locales.

Mozilla’s pre-release versions of Firefox are development platforms, frequently updated with experimental features. We collect more data in pre-release than what we do after release in order to understand how these experimental features are working. You can opt out of having this data collected in preferences.
But why do you collect any data at all?

If we don’t know how the browser is performing or which features people use, we can’t make it better and deliver the great product you want. We’ve invested in building data collection and analysis tools that allow us to make smart decisions about our product while respecting people’s privacy. You can read more about some of the privacy preserving technologies we use, like OHTTP.
Data collection still bugs me. Can I turn it off?

Yes. User control is one of our data privacy principles. We put that into practice in Firefox on our privacy settings page, which serves as a one-stop shop for anyone looking to take control of their privacy in Firefox. You can turn off data collection there.


This is essentially "differential privacy". Love newspeak.

>>28726
>We still put a lot of work into making sure that the data that we share with our partners (which we need to do to make Firefox commercially viable) is stripped of any identifying information, or shared only in the aggregate, or is put through our privacy preserving technologies (like OHTTP).
You might already know this, but advertising companies use "anonymization" as a very obvious smokescreen. Any anonymous profile with a substantial amount of data can almost always be used to reconstruct a person's identity.
>You can turn off data collection there.
And as some of you might know, to stop firefox from phoning home you need to make adjustments to about:config.

>>28726
>>28731
Pretty much, lol. Besides a custom user config there's like 300 lines in my hosts file to stop Firefox from doing anything unwanted.

>>28725
I think they do stuff at compile too, but yeah it's sorta like a gentler arkenfox with some stuff that a user.js can't do, like .jxl support.

the thing about web browsers is that web protocols have become a bloated convoluted mess and they might as well be operating systems with all the shit they try to do at the same time, so thats why the only two real choices are firefox and chrom*

>>28724
Why would you stop using Tor for everything? Thats a good habit to have.
>>28725
I believe they selectively incorporate some patches from Tor, so it's not 1:1 "Firefox but good defaults"

That Tor patches bit may have been IronFox instead but I dont think so

>>28740
>Why would you stop using Tor for everything?
Because my ISP logs would be filled with connections to Tor and with Firefox I can mod the fuck out of it with userChrome.css etc.

>>28770
>Because my ISP logs would be filled with connections to Tor
Is that in itself something to be held against ya or what's the issue there.

>>28770
>my ISP logs would be filled with connections to Tor
if you use tor in any way at all, you're as likely to be monitored as if you used it for everything. the only difference is your tor traffic will consist of things you don't want your isp to see, making it more of a target.
>with Firefox I can mod the fuck out of it with userChrome.css
just run the tor daemon and configure it as a proxy in firefox

>>28772
Just don't want to paint a big target on my back is all.

>>28773
>just run the tor daemon and configure it as a proxy in firefox
Isn't this even worse as I'll make my Tor browsing a lot more easy to track?

>>28774
>Isn't this even worse as I'll make my Tor browsing a lot more easy to track?
as i alluded to in >>28621 the tor projects insistence on a unalterable stock configuration is more fud than anything. from this angle you're deanonymized at any point where you deviate from the average tech-illiterate person's browsing experience. if you enabled all of firefox's anti-fingerprinting features, use a good adblocker/umatrix and maybe spoof your user-agent, you should be as anonymous as it gets, sans whatever they patch into the tor browser. making your browser non-persistent, having an addon periodically clear all cached/site data and disabling sessionstore altogether are also good ideas.