[sf-lug] Brave browser

[Christian Einfeldt]

Thanks to Rick and Tony and Bobbi for your informative replies!

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 11:43 PM Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:

> Quoting Tony Godshall (togo at of.net):
>
> > It's lighter than chromium, has the Google stuff removed, has integrated
> > ad-blocking and anti-fingerprinting, and their own opt-in cryptocoin
> > advertising system added. I'd trust it more if a major distro blessed it
> or
> > I was building it from source, but for my clients, it works better than
> > Chrome or Chromium.
>
> Not intending to object, in the following.  Here FWIW is what I said
> about Brave Browser when I was asked about it in May 2019.  (I believe
> you, Tony, saw this exchange, but some others here probably didn't.)
>
>
> > What do you think of Brave?
>
> So, as I'm sure you know, it's a modified version of Chromium sponsored
> by a new-ish Brendan Eich company (Brave Software, Inc.), with a novel
> business model:  You agree to see a set of 'replacement' adverts the
> company has a business deal with, and in return the firm maintains
> blocking features that prevent you from needing to see most other
> adverts (ones from firms the company lacks a business model with).
> Essentially, you agree to let Brave Software be an advertising middleman
> deciding what ads you'll be obliged to see, with you getting fewer total
> ads out of the deal, and Brave Software getting a cut from the favoured
> advertisers.
>
> Many commenters have found that business arrangement to be a bit skeevy,
> and others (to my amusement) have acted outraged that a firm would have
> the audacity to substitute a set of ads you don't especially want to see
> for a different set you also didn't especially want to see.
>
> Me, I don't have strong feelings about _that_, but object to Brave
> Software getting detailed information about what I choose to do on the
> Web.  Also, IMO, it's in the long term more satisfactory to be in charge
> of one's own advert-blocking, although admittedly it's quite a bit of
> work.
>
> FWIW, Chromium itself turns out to have a number of disturbing things
> built into it, where Google arrogates to itself the right to launch
> strange processes from the browser to conduct experiments and collect
> information, e.g., suddenly you look at the process list and wonder what
> the Gehenna all this stuff is, and why your system is chewing up CPU and
> RAM running all this stuff.
>
> I note this community rebuild, which removes the junk:
> https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
>
>   ungoogled-chromium
>
>   A lightweight approach to removing Google web service dependency
>
>   ungoogled-chromium is Google Chromium, sans dependency on Google web
>   services. It also features some tweaks to enhance privacy, control, and
>   transparency (almost all of which require manual activation or
>   enabling).
>
>   ungoogled-chromium retains the default Chromium experience as closely as
>   possible. Unlike other Chromium forks that have their own visions of a
>   web browser, ungoogled-chromium is essentially a drop-in replacement for
>   Chromium.
>
> I should probably add that to the menagerie.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sf-lug mailing list
> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
> SF-LUG is at http://www.sf-lug.org/
>


-- 
Christian Einfeldt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/sf-lug/attachments/20200424/5fbe4d81/attachment.html>