undefined | Better HN

0 points1vuio0pswjnm71y ago0 comments

I'm betting never.

Some people want to keep letting the company do remote installation of code on their computers ("automatic updates") even when everyone knows the company is selling them out.

"The fox guards our hen house. In return we let him eat all the chickens he wants." Mozilla has got you covered.

Do Firefox users ever share patches to remove these undesirable "features". There are patched versions of Firefox with goofy names that claim privacy advantanges. But AFAICT always distributed in binary form.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

MaxMatti1y ago· 1 in thread

If Firefox is so bad then which better alternative do you propose? The one owned by the biggest advertising company? The one that is only available on Apple's devices? The one owned by the company that puts ads into the start menu of your OS? The one that injects its own affiliate ID into the websites you browse? The one that takes tens of seconds to load even the simplest website? One of those that don't support JavaScript and thus don't let you use 99% of the web?

burnerthrow0081y ago

I guess that’s one way to look at it, but one of those options is clearly different from the others because the maker doesn’t have the same economic incentives.

It’s a shame that the EC decided to make it easier for websites to force users not to use that one, though.

ndriscoll1y ago· 1 in thread

Librewolf seems to be a collection of patch files (neat, one of those patches is for default JXL support!):

https://codeberg.org/librewolf/source

Applications in F-Droid must be FOSS:

https://f-droid.org/en/docs/Inclusion_Policy/

1vuio0pswjnm7OP1y ago

Thank you for that link to the librewolf source. Exactly what I was after.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse