top 46 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 71 points 5 months ago (1 child)

Oh shit. Someone finally called my "I'd pay not to have to use AI" bluff.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 51 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    Unless you absolutely want to contribute to the chromium monopoly, Firefox is right there and still free. If you're concerned about the telemetry, LibreWolf is worth looking at.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago*

    Firefox has implemented many of the same features that Chrome has recently (groups, split tabs, vertical tabs, reading mode etc.) but has also consistently been implementing them earlier and better. There are just so many small annoyances with these features on Chrome that aren't there in Firefox, and Chrome is always late to the party.

    The golden era of Chrome is long gone, probably because the most competent people working at Google have moved on.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Mandatory note: you cannot contribute a dime towards Firefox. Google contributes, not you. Money given to Mozilla will find its way into AI experiments (https://www.mozilla.ai/) and AI grants (https://mozilla.vc/).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Clarification: You can disable all the AI stuff with one switch.

    Furthermore, the hardened forks of Firefox don't have it.

    Still better than contributing to the chromium monopoly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Please take this clarification to Mozilla: AI should never have been in their browser in the first place. If they felt it was necessary to waste donations on, they could have offered it as an actually optional extension.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    I'm extremely cautious around Mozilla (a bit aggressive, even), and don't have much trust in them for the future of Firefox at this point. And yet, it's only worries for the future; as it currently goes, there's some major annoyances in Firefox, but they still give most/all the settings needed to have a privacy-enabled browser (at least enough for most users).

    And, obviously, I'd rather take "it currently works well but I'm worried about a potentially bad thing in the future" over "it's broken now and operated by crooks".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 5 months ago

    The fact that they have to charge $60 to not have all that crap in there should tell you everything about why they have that crap in there. Taking it out kills their revenue stream from their “free” fully-featured version.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 5 months ago

    Huh, funnily enough, Ive introduced my own $60 fee if they want me to read the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy agreements that come along with their browser.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago

    It's so weird to me that people go nuts over Brave or Opera GX or whatever when Firefox and forks like Zen or LibreWolf are around and do their job so well.

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Brave is a scam and not security or privacy

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago

    Brave is something I never wanted in the first place.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago

    Good news for me! I don't have to pay since I don't use brave at all. Yay me!

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago

    Don't give bigots your money...

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago

    It’s free on Linux. Still, I find it difficult to justify paying for a browser unless you want to directly support it.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    That's what you get for using a broader called brave. We all knew we'd end up here.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    You can go into the settings and manually disable (nearly?) all the features that are removed in the paid version without paying anything. That’s what I did. They aren’t paywalling the ability disable the features.

    It doesn’t matter to me whether someone uses Brave or not, but the headline is misleading, though pedantically accurate.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    The idea behind ladybird is great. I just just wish someone else was at the helm. Kling seems to be kind of a huge douche.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (6 children)

    Yeah I really don't care about that. There's another part to this story and people just want to hate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (5 children)

    Care to elaborate? I personally wouldn't "cancel" Ladybird as a project, but I do think it's worth pointing out when shitty prople do shitty things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    They didn't do a shitty thing. Somebody raised a PR for a useless change regarding a developer document.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    You clearly did not read what I linked. There's more than that to this situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Yes I did. Twice now to make sure I didn't read over something. But I also read the original GitHub PR while it was still open. And what you linked is just an opinion on the situation.

    I'm on the side of the maintainer. Always have been, always will. You want to be politically correct? Go into politics. Or at least wait until they start translating and branding. There's no need to go and change something that meaningless. It shows you actively went and searched for it, instead of actually helping out the project or staying out of their way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago

    They are endorsing linux, what a good company asking users to indirectly move to linux for their browser.

  • source
  • [+] -10 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    Honestly I don't hate that at all

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    If you really want to use a chromium-based browser, Vivaldi does all this and for free. It's not bad, definitely a bit faster than firefox but that's the nature of the beast for the web these days. I also like having my tabs on the side rather than the top. I think you can do that with Firefox via an extension, I'll have to play around. But I much prefer using Firefox in my daily life

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Vertical tabs is a built in function of FF. I think you just right click on a tab and there's an option on the context menu to switch maybe?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Only since like last year, so it's not a huge surprise someone would be unaware.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Vivaldi's ad blocking is far worse. I'm not sure how they built it, but even after you disable the whitelists for their paying partners, it misses things Brave and uBO on Firefox don't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Vivaldi still supports Manifest V2, doesn't it? So you should be able to put UBO on it as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    While I'm not 100% sure about UBO, I've been happily running Ad-Nauseam (based on UBO) on Vivaldi since the Manifest V2 troubles. It does require jumping through a minor hoop, but if you're tech savvy enough to use adblock, it won't present you any trouble or take much time at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -9 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Mozilla take note. You can actually get money from your users for a change, and not just through Google.

    Especially when your userbase, the people you're supposedly building your browser for, keep telling you to keep AI out of it.

    Brave is actually listening to their users. Mozilla should feel humiliated that they never do.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    Mozilla, the company that recently added a "disable AI" toggle to Firefox?

    It's not as good as not implementing the things in the first place, for people who don't want it, but making it a paid model for removing features would net them more flack, I feel. They'd be accused of trying to squeeze their user base, when Firefox is traditionally free.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    I saw that toggle for the first time today. Made me feel a little better about all the AI stuff and that sometimes my telemetry settings reset. I don't know if the tele thing is ff or just my config to be clear. Today my wife asked me for how to get rid of the ai search summary in Chrome. That leads me to believe that even some "normies" aren't thrilled with AI everywhere. I agree with you that a paid version of ff would rankle the community.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    It's not as good as not implementing the things in the first place

    Then you understand exactly why Mozilla is so problematic.

    Mozilla wrote the playbook that said "Defaults matter!!!" and then Mozilla made their defaults shit. Mozilla should be apologizing to you for requiring a switch to begin with. If they had any semblance of morality, they would be endlessly contrite.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I get all Mozilla hate, but I'd rake them twice before touching google with a 10m-pole.

    And what else have we got? Some more or less decent forks of either Firefox or chrome. Which still needs the base to exist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment