I use Brave as a backup browser. My main one is Firefox.
You can turn off the crypto stuff. You don't have to use Brave Shields (in browser ad blocker). It can be turned off. Now you can use uBlock Origin or another ad blocker.
About the CEO, I can't see nothing about his beliefs reflecting in his work. Looks like he kept them separated. I'm not for said beliefs.
That you can is besides the point. You shouldn’t need to. If the first thing I need to think about after installing it is “well, let’s see what garbage is in here that I need to turn off”, then any trust I would have for it has already gone out the window. Especially important odor a browser where that is kind of the main differentiating aspect.
Firefox has telemetry. You can opt out and delete it, but by that logic it shouldn't be trusted either. Also, I doubt people who really care about privacy don't harden firefox. Being able to is not besides the point.
Idk if I’m doing something different but for me, the crypto stuff seems to be opt in.
Like you have to create a wallet it seems, they don’t make one for you.
The article (and these comments) are rife with half-truths and pitchforks. (And I use Firefox).
By that logic, Firefox would be in the same boat. After initially installing, you have to turn off data collection in the settings and disable Pocket in the config.
Beside**
It still has to be feature rich and work or of the box. I haven't been back to Firefox in a few years, but it was pretty dumpy by comparison to brave. I'll look again but the key feature of a browser to me isn't "it's not Google, it's Foss, and I don't have to disable stuff".
I'm gonna hope you're a fellow Linux user if that's the perspective you take.
I wasn’t arguing for Firefox or FOSS. It just seems to me that if your selling point is trust and privacy (at least it is what I see people citing as Brave’s Big Thing), you should be as transparent and irreproachable in that regard as possible. Having said this, of course, good features can be enough for the trade-off to be worth it (this is true of pretty much every piece of software out there, Chrome included), depending t each user finds more important.
i'll look again but the key feature of a browser to me isn't "it's not Google, it's Foss, and I don't have to disable stuff".
You use linux but your primary criteria for the most used program on a PC is not having to configure it?
That's a pretty odd middle ground to take.
I think you misread me. I said I don't mind configuring. It's not hard to turn off default options.
There's a degoogled chromium you can use as backup if you like.
I use Brave as a backup browser. My main one is Firefox.
You can turn off the crypto stuff. You don't have to use Brave Shields (in browser ad blocker). It can be turned off. Now you can use uBlock Origin or another ad blocker.
About the CEO, I can't see nothing about his beliefs reflecting in his work. Looks like he kept them separated. I'm not for said beliefs.
That you can is besides the point. You shouldn’t need to. If the first thing I need to think about after installing it is “well, let’s see what garbage is in here that I need to turn off”, then any trust I would have for it has already gone out the window. Especially important odor a browser where that is kind of the main differentiating aspect.
Firefox has telemetry. You can opt out and delete it, but by that logic it shouldn't be trusted either. Also, I doubt people who really care about privacy don't harden firefox. Being able to is not besides the point.
Idk if I’m doing something different but for me, the crypto stuff seems to be opt in.
Like you have to create a wallet it seems, they don’t make one for you.
The article (and these comments) are rife with half-truths and pitchforks. (And I use Firefox).
By that logic, Firefox would be in the same boat. After initially installing, you have to turn off data collection in the settings and disable Pocket in the config.
Beside**
It still has to be feature rich and work or of the box. I haven't been back to Firefox in a few years, but it was pretty dumpy by comparison to brave. I'll look again but the key feature of a browser to me isn't "it's not Google, it's Foss, and I don't have to disable stuff".
I'm gonna hope you're a fellow Linux user if that's the perspective you take.
I wasn’t arguing for Firefox or FOSS. It just seems to me that if your selling point is trust and privacy (at least it is what I see people citing as Brave’s Big Thing), you should be as transparent and irreproachable in that regard as possible. Having said this, of course, good features can be enough for the trade-off to be worth it (this is true of pretty much every piece of software out there, Chrome included), depending t each user finds more important.
You use linux but your primary criteria for the most used program on a PC is not having to configure it?
That's a pretty odd middle ground to take.
I think you misread me. I said I don't mind configuring. It's not hard to turn off default options.
There's a degoogled chromium you can use as backup if you like.
Here's the links for all who care.
https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium
https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium-windows
Building a browser from source every security update sucks.
I use Arch and Debian and I don't think I ever had to build ungoogled chromium from source before (unless I wanted to, which I didn't).
The AUR binary is newish (1yr old).
It wasn't there last time I gave ungoogled-chromium a shot.
It's just a normal application??
Thats what I use and it's great.
I use brave as my backup in windows and linux. And my default for Android to sync bookmarks.
Firefox android experience have always been subpar for me even without Darkreader which is known to slow down the browser in Android.
Why use a product that pays a bad actor tho?
There are other options, free options.