I have seen many people in this community either talking about switching to Brave, or people who are actively using Brave. I would like to remind people that Brave browser (and by extension their search engine) is not privacy-centric whatsoever.
Brave was already ousted as spyware in the past and the company has made many decisions that are questionable at best. For example, Brave made a cryptocurrency which they then added to a rewards program that is built into the browser to encourage you to enable ads that are controlled by Brave.
Edit: Please be aware that the spyware article on Brave (and the rest of the browsers on the site) is outdated and may not reflect the browser as it is today.
After creating this cryptocurrency and rewards program, they started inserting affiliate codes into URL's. Prior to this they had faked fundraising for popular social media creators.
Do these decisions seem like ones a company that cares about their users (and by extension their privacy) would make? I'd say the answer is a very clear no.
One last thing, Brave illegally promoted an eToro affiliate program making a fortune from its users who will likely lose their money.
Edit: To the people commenting saying how Brave has a good out-of-the-box experience compared to other browsers, yes, it does. However, this is not a warning for your average person, this is a warning for people who actively care about their privacy and don't mind configuring their browser to maximize said privacy.
My guess is because Brave is a relatively known Chromium browser that's been degoogled. Along with built in ad and tracker blocking, and it's an easy less evil of the two.
I want to like Firefox, both as normal user and as web developer, but something about it keeps bugging me. The UI feels sluggish, sites seem to be slightly less performant, and I can't seem to get used to it.
That said, I've started using Vivaldi, and while it can be considered bloated, I really like the tab options it has, while also offering a degoogled chromium that's being kept to date.
Because all the web devs optimize for chrome because they dominate the market. If more people use Firefox then devs will start to care about performance in it
(You're a dev so I assume you know this. This comment is mainly for other people)
You're going to have to convince MILLIONS of people to even scratch the surface of "making a difference" or even being noticed.
Not really. I've gotten plenty of bugs fixed on other sites by just sending them a screenshot of something going wrong in Firefox. For the big companies like Facebook though you're entirely correct
At what point will even the smaller companies stop providing that support, and how do we as a community combat the eventual end of it?
I guess we complain as loud and as often as we can. And give our money to companies that support Firefox. Thankfully most of my coworkers, at every company I've worked at, use Firefox use Firefox so the website usually works because they needed it to to do their job
We combat the eventual end of it by getting more people to use it. The more people using it the more support it gets.
It's the same as someone not voting because they are only one person. Sure, you're only one person, but when millions of people have that exact same thought it makes a difference.
Add a user agent checker to your website and add tag: 'Your browser, Google Chrome, is not supported. Please open this website on Firefox.'
Thic could attract masses.
Tomorrow morning, Google could decide to program google.com to no longer work with any gecko browser. Firefox will be dead by the afternoon, no matter how many antitrust/monopoly lawsuits get filed.
I'm not sure what it is. I suppose this is the case for the heavier web-applications, but the average website (which is where my expertise is, not actual applications) also feels slightly worse on FF. And as far as I know, I don't use any chrome-specific tricks or optimizations.
If you're already techy, why simply not install degoogled Chromium and two or three extensions? Why bother with pre-packaged versions of the browser that will inevitably mean: waiting before upstream improvements reach your version, depending on the quality and exceptions made by the built in blocker, trying to argue the added data collection is worth it, and so on.
Just grab Chromium, add uBlock origin, your favorite private DNS and that's it.
Because it contributes to Google's hegemony over web standards, and that's bad for the Internet.
I don't see how it contributes any more than installing the Chromium-based Brave or Vivaldi, which are the comparisons being made in this specific thread.
We are way past the point individual action would ever make Chromium not the default web standard.
Also, we are talking about Degoogled Chromium vs Chromium-based pre-packaged browser. So your point makes no sense.
Every update takes forever to compile
I feel the exact same. I use linux with a tiling window manager and when I change format, Firefox just starts twitching like it's trying to give me an epileptic seizure while chromium browsers do it just fine.
Also, sometime ago I tried to compare Chrome (when I still used it) and Firefox side by side with the same extensions opening the same websites and Firefox always took a bit more ram.
You sure that’s not a WM problem?
FWIW, Ubuntu 20.04, i3wm, no problems with Firefox
Idk, I use gnome with pop shell tiling and Firefox is the only program that does it.
Try another WM and see if you still have issues
The problem is that so many site hyper-optimize for chrome. Add that to Google helping create web frameworks that seem to almost intentionally break Firefox and you get a de facto standard on chrome because ANYTHING else seems broken.
Long live FF
Try basic Chromium, it's Chrome without the Google.
You're not wrong about Firefox, many sites are specifically optimized for Chrome and perform worse in FF. This is especially true for anything Google.
My machines are generally fast enough that FF is fine so I prefer it but I fall back to Chromium occasionally or Chrome and Edge for specific uses.
There's nothing in particular wrong with Vivaldi, IIRC I didn't like some features or UI bits when I used it last so it didn't have anything to recommend itself to me over basic Chromium. I'd prefer it over Edge which, IMO, is bloated with a bunch of garbage but Edge has very good streaming site support so 🤷♂️
Vivaldi tab management is pretty great. Vivaldi is designed for power users that always have a ton of tabs open. There are a bunch of other features as well that I use regularly, but I could see that it might be a bit of a learning curve for those that just want to install a browser and immediately know where everything is. There has been more than a few times that I discovered yet another efficiency using Vivaldi and felt like I was getting more from it. Definitely a browser for someone willing to spend time configuring it for their use case. Keyboard shortcuts ftw!
Vivaldi definitely has a learning curve. It's great once you have it set up how you like (which, granted, is way too time consuming for the average user). But the tab stacking and tiling is so immensely useful for me, I can't use other browsers without missing those features now.
Pretty much the only reason I use brave. 99% of the time librewolf. I don't wanna go through the effort of installing chromium and an ad blocker and all that other stuff for the 1% of sites that are broken on firefox for me so brave it is. Really I just wish there was a chrome repackage with all this stuff out of the box. God knows chrome and chromium will never be that.