You're viewing a single thread.
Librewolf is just a usable Firefox
Firefox is a completely usable Firefox.
If you dont care about Ad search engines, Studies, Pocket, Google Safebrowsing, search suggestions, a start page with ads, weak privacy settings, all cookies saved forever, no adblocking, a unique canvas fingerprint, a user agent containing your Linux Distro,...
I went through the arkenfox user.js and literally all of it minus 20 or so settings just make sense. The rest are kinda overkill, but really, Firefox is horrible out of the box.
It is really modular luckily
"horrible" being mostly sensible for the average user, as well as basic telemetry for making development much easier. but muhhh nooo with that information they can know who exactly I am!!! preach!!!
Could you list what exactly is necessary to have a good user experience?
A lot of these are privacy invasive. Senseful telemitry is fine, but I dont see how they do that.
really, Firefox is horrible out of the box.
It is really modular luckily
Talking shit, but even you still have to recognize excellent software design.
Stop harrassing me please. Just because you are fine with something, you cant say anyone else is talking shit.
Firefox is really modular, and that makes it different from the other browers.
I don't see how a couple of replies could be considered harassment just because I used the phrase "talking shit". The fact is that you're fear mongering, and you apparently don't like it being questioned.
Most of these aren't issues or are "solved" in a couple of seconds.
I am curious, exactly how would it be remotely possible for me to care that my UA string mentions Ubuntu when that's not even technically my distro? I cannot summon an ounce of concern there. Seriously, how the hell would that matter in the least to anyone?
It adds one factor for Fingerprinting that is simply not needed
I knew you would say that. I imagine that user agent strings as a concept are bad, in your opinion?
They are useful to differentiate mobile from PC devices. That is not needed as many Websites are dynamic, but useful for some.
As all browsers also support the common web standards, it is also not necessary for determining supported features or something.
The only other use I find is having download links targeting the platform, but especially on Linux that is not really useful
"useful" is relative. I prefer a world where websites can know which platforms users are coming from, as it helps them know where to focus their support efforts.
There are billions of users but probably only a few OSes mentioned in UA strings so it seems like a decent trade off to me. My exact UA string is likely shared by millions of users even though my OS is somewhat rare on the world stage. Until the day comes that web browsers work exactly the same way on every platform, at which case I'd agree with you, no longer useful. Unfortunately for decades we've been quite a bit short of that end.
Just checked because I couldn't remember exactly what OS info mine included last I looked. It's quite generic:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:128.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/128.0There is a big variety of browsers there, and as I said, the UA is simply one of the many tracking points.
Websites often dont support users, they live off ads because we didnt find any internet model that can live without ads, which are a horrible concept.
I was in a supermarket today where card payment was broken. There was a huge sign in the middle of the entrance about that, but a lot of people still didnt read it and had to bring back their groceries.
I think this is in part due to ads. Ads train us to not concentrate, zoom out and be passive. Otherwise, looking at all that manipulative garbage would make us insane.
So I am curious to why Websites would need to support users. Normal web standards work the same. There is a trend towards not supporting Firefox or maybe platforms with worse DRM, like Linux (where you can screencast any DRM browser anyways). So I think Netflix uses the Linux user agent to limit you to 1080p (as a laptop user and pirate I have no idea how this is an issue though)
You are lucky here with your generic UA. maybe this is also outdated, but I read this was a thing at least on some distro packaged Firefoxes.
Also that the search engines preconfigured would always get the info about what OS you are using.
Yes these things may not be critical, and Firefox does a ton of awesome things like cookie isolation and containers, to limit the creepy stuff.
But
- having HTTPS off by default
- being on "default" privacy level
- keeping all cookies
Is simply not okay. HTTP is still possible, I only know a single popup-ads-riddled site that doesnt work with Firefoxes most private setting. And deleting all cookies and making exceptions work kinda fine.
There was a button to save cookies for a site, but it is gone? No idea why.
Improving good private UX helps. Being too shy to implement it harms its reputation I think.
I also like Brave with their model for monetization via crypto. I would be happy to tip a few cents for every website click, but micro transactions just dont really work.
But as a sensitive person, I will absolutely always block every ad possible, as ads are horrible.
I agree with you about ads for sure. But I'm not really sure what you mean about https being off by default. What I've noticed is that if I type an IP address into the address bar, FF first tries https and if that fails falls back to http.
Regarding UA string: As a web developer I have worked on many projects, one currently, where browsers misbehave in unpredictable ways. Most notable these days is Safari. Without a user agent string I really don't have a way to workaround that browser's shortcomings. Yes, for this purpose, the UA string should be a last resort because feature detection is best, but trust me feature detection isn't always possible. It would not work for the current slew of issues I'm working through in Safari.
Also, I would encourage you to read up on Brave and funder/fundamentalist Peter Thiel. Brave is not only a Google supporting browser by virtue of using chromium, it's also wrapped up in some shady shit, including being funded by a conservative psychopath.
I mean the HTTPS-only toggle. It still allows HTTP but after a warning. HTTP sites still work, so this should be opt-out.
Safari only works on 2/3 Platforms, so I dont think a UA containing the OS, let alone a detailed "Lubuntu" etc. detail
I heard about Peter Thiel I think in very different contexts? I wouldnt support Brave at all, I use a mix or hardened Firefox, Mull and Vanadium.