this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
20 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

81 readers
25 users here now

A community for everything relating to the linux operating system

Also check out !linux_memes@programming.dev

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Easily install your favourite browsers on Fedora Atomic Desktops, Silverblue, Kinoite, uBlue, Bazzite, Aurora, Bluefin, Secureblue etc.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I don't dispute Brave may be private in the current version, but with all the things they did they are not trustworthy, with many write ups online, some going as far as to call it malware. You are of course free to disagree, if you don't think your browser adding extra tracking to your links is a deal breaker.

I don't know where you are reading that Vivaldi is closed source. The source code is right here: https://vivaldi.com/source/

It does have fingerprinting protection, it has blocking trackers and ads built-in, and you can enable site isolation and turn off third party cookies if you choose to.

[–] Lemongrab@lemmy.one 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Brave added affiliate links to URLs. While I agree this is quite shady, it is not much different from how Vivaldi makes money. Also Vivaldi is not open source and doesnt come close to Brave or Librewolf in privacy tests. Vivaldi's fingerprinting protections are incomplete (it seems they stopped at canvas randomization?), it features a weak built-in content blocker, and has an insecure default config (JS JIT and WASM are enabled). I would compare it to default ungoogled chromium + basic adblocker. Vivaldi is no where close to Librewolf or Brave in terms of adblocking, anti-fingerprinting, and browser security hardening. Vivaldi is a neat browser, but a privacy one? I don't think so.

EDIT: Here are some links. Privacytests.org is a precomputed comparison table, the other two sites are fingerprinting sites which give a better idea of how much must be protected for adequate anti-fingerprinting.

Independent browser Privacy tests: https://privacytests.org/
CreepJS fingerprinting site: https://abrahamjuliot.github.io/creepjs/
Firefox Arkenfox fingerprinting test site: https://arkenfox.github.io/TZP/tzp.html

[–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I said Vivaldi is not open source a 2 comments ago. I said I recommend Firefox and derivatives, including Librewolf, I said Brave may be more secure, but shouldn't be used for reason that have nothing to do with it. Since you are not reading my comments anyway, I won't spend the time.

[–] Lemongrab@lemmy.one 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

Your comment I was replying to said "I don't know where you are reading that Vivaldi is closed source. The source code is right here: https://vivaldi.com/source/". I was responding to that with Vivaldi's statement about how the browser is closed source.

In your original comment you illude to it being neither open or closed source, which is not true either since it is closed source. Maybe you meant source available? I didnt read anywhere saying that.

[–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

Closed source (or proprietary software) means computer programs whose source code is not published.

It's not closed source, since the source is publicly published. It's source available.

[–] Lemongrab@lemmy.one 1 points 7 hours ago

Source available is closed source by the OSI definition, which is what is widely used and understood. The "closed" in closed source doesnt only refer to source visibility but also the freedoms upheld by open source.