Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by metagame 1718 days ago
It doesn't ship ads in your web browser, unlike Firefox. It allows you to install WebExtensions from any source (even if you don't sign them with Mozilla!), unlike Firefox.

I wouldn't recommend it, but that's just because I wouldn't recommend any web browser right now.
1 comments
Nicksil 1718 days ago
>It doesn't ship ads in your web browser

Well, Waterfox is owned by an advertising company.

link
metagame 1718 days ago
Sure, and I'm not saying it's good for privacy. But Firefox in its default setting is also bordering unusable, inserting ads in the address bar!

It's incredible that an advertising company does better than a for-profit owned by a non-profit in this regard.

link
bscphil 1718 days ago
Sorry, context for this? I take a pretty thorough scalpel to removing any traces of sponsored content from Firefox, and it never occurred to me that they might have ads in the address bar. Is there a previous discussion an announcement about this?
link
ev1 1718 days ago
You want both of these to be false.

browser.urlbar.suggest.quicksuggest.sponsored

browser.urlbar.sponsoredTopSites

link
intelMgmntEnema 1718 days ago
For aesthetics and anti-stupidity's sake, might I also recommend:

browser.urlbar.trimURLs

False.

It is possible that I'm so culturally eccentric that the obstruction of useful information fails to appeal to me.

link
WithinReason 1718 days ago
Thanks.

They were already off for me, and I don't remember being asked about enabling them after an install...

link
joecool1029 1718 days ago
They won't ask or inform you of this it just gets enabled. (Currently just in US). HN discussion from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28804588
link
beebeepka 1718 days ago
There were stories about it a few days ago. It's US only thing, for now.
link
metagame 1718 days ago
They added it unannounced in the last update, Firefox 93. There was a small outrage on behalf of the dozens of people still paying attention to Firefox, but nothing came of it. If you're on a good distribution, you'll probably see it disabled by default.
link
bscphil 1718 days ago
Honestly I have been disappointed beyond the capacity for outrage with Firefox. Do you know of any positive cases of a distribution that disables this?

Edit: just to add to this, my understanding is that Mozilla uses (abuses?) their trademark on Firefox to keep the distributions in line. If you distribute a version of Firefox that's been patched to remove anti-features, you can't call it Firefox.

link
guerrilla 1718 days ago
Arch Linux seems to have disabled it. Both the config flags are false for me and I haven't touched that.
link
kwhitefoot 1718 days ago
I've never seen ads in the address bar and when I checked the about:config for those two items they were both false. I installed it from the Pop OS! repository.

It isn't a patch to Firefox just configuration.

link
dralley 1718 days ago
Whoa, borderline unusable because of something Chrome has effectively been doing for a long time?

https://imgur.com/a/baXZDrN

link
metagame 1718 days ago
Yes, actually. Chrome is unusable adware. Firefox is borderline unusable adware, and it takes a long time to remove all of the proprietary components and proprietary services from it. Waterfox is probably doing something to snatch your data, but it probably won't outright impede your use of the browser. Epiphany exists, but they still aren't shipping with WebExtensions a year after implementing them because it goes against the "GNOME way" or some garbage knockoff-HIG.

There really isn't a good web browser.

link
fartcannon 1718 days ago
Yes, that's one of the many reasons Chrome is unsuable.
link