this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2024
521 points (93.8% liked)

Linux

48208 readers
1336 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A little admiration of how easy UI customization is on Firefox, and how shitty Chromium looks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TCB13@lemmy.world 52 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (9 children)

You never tried to listen for stock Firefox's traffic with Wireshark for sure.

People speak very good thing about Firefox but they like to hide and avoid the shady stuff. Let me give you the un-cesored version of what Firefox really is. Firefox is better than most, no double there, but at the same time they do have some shady finances and they also do stuff like adding unique IDs to each installation.

Firefox does is a LOT of calling home. Just fire Wireshark alongside it and see how much calling home and even calling 3rd parties it does. From basic ocsp requests to calling Firefox servers and a 3rd party company that does analytics they do it all, even after disabling most stuff in Settings and config like the OP did.

I know other browsers do it as well, except for Ungoogled and because of that I’m sticking with it. I would like to avoid programs that need no snitch whenever I open them. ungoogled-chromium + ublock origin + decentraleyes + clearurls and a few others.

Now you’re free to go ahead and downvote this post as much as you would like. I’m sorry for the trouble and mental break down I may have caused by the sudden realization that Firefox isn’t as good and private after all.

[–] somethingsomethingidk@lemmy.world 42 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think librewolf scrubs most of that stuff out. I'm basing that off of using burpsuite's proxy server though. On vanilla firefox it captures so much crap going out. I havent tried with wireshark though.

[–] TCB13@lemmy.world -4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Librewolf is my second browser, but I don't see me using it everyday. I like chromium rendering more and the dev tools.

[–] venji10@feddit.de 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Chrome devtools are just bullshit. Firefox has the better implementation imo

[–] TCB13@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Let me ask you, how much do you use the dev tools and for what?

[–] hubobes@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Not OP, but every single day, for web development. I find them quite a bit more intuitive and easier to use then the ones Ungoogled-Chromium comes with.

[–] 0xD@infosec.pub 4 points 8 months ago

I use them for security assessments and completely agree with the other person. I find Chrome so unintuitive and ugly compared to Firefox.

[–] ivn@jlai.lu 30 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's all true, but why take a modified chromium instead of a modified Firefox?

Also clearurls and decentraleyes would be pretty much useless with Firefox and uBlock Origin.

[–] TCB13@lemmy.world -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That’s all true, but why take a modified chromium instead of a modified Firefox?

Because chromium rendering is better than Firefox's and I personally like the dev tools better and my usual target audience in dev uses Chrome. I have LibreWolf as the secondary browser but I don't see me ever liking the way Firefox renders the web.

[–] d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz 12 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Because chromium rendering is better than Firefox

Got any examples of popular websites that render better on Chrome?

[–] lemann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 8 months ago

I personally prefer Firefox's rendering, or even Edge's old and long deprecated EdgeHTML (Trident fork) renderer.

IME Chrome performs way too much antialiasing on graphics that are not to scale, and their default font hinting technique doesn't match Windows or even common Linux distro defaults.

It feels a lot like the enhanced speed and performance come from the shortcuts taken in the renderer, akin to Safari... except that Safari also opts to just refuse implementing new APIs and draft specs.

Text heavy sites in particular are not really that nice to read in Chrome for me personally.

[–] TCB13@lemmy.world -3 points 8 months ago

Usually it’s not about entire websites, it’s the small detail like the font rendering smoothness and a few others.

[–] Para_lyzed@lemmy.world 20 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Chromium-based browsers have inherently weaker extensions due to Manifest v3 and many other targeted attacks on adblockers. If you want a browser that works far better and provides a much higher level of privacy, use Mullvad Browser (worked on in collaboration with the Tor Browser, just without Tor integration) or LibreWolf. Both are Firefox forks with Firefox telemetry removed and anti-fingerprinting measures. You don't need and absolutely should not install any extensions beyond the default installed in those 2 browsers (except perhaps a password manager), as that will dramatically damage the fingerprinting protection they provide. Both will have a much higher level of protection than you could ever realistically expect from any Chromium-based Browser.

[–] jbk@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 8 months ago

I'd really rather have some harmless telemetry by Mozilla with a stronger ad blocker than Chromium bullshit. Ngl some people take privacy too seriously

[–] Pantherina@feddit.de 19 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes but no. Firefox does some creepy stuff, and I will need to verify this. But it also matters how much data websites get about you, and Ungoogled Chromium has no fingerprint protection

[–] abbenm@lemmy.ml 18 points 8 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Firefox is better than most, no double there, but at the same time they do have some shady finances

So I went ahead and read that article and goodness gracious, does anybody actually read these links??? Because that link is a complete nothingburger. It's a blog post from someone who never read a 990 before (standard nonprofit disclosure form) who thinks every other line of is proof of a scandal. But it's not, it's just a big word salad that is too long to read, so nobody will bother.

The most significant charge is (1) that the CEO makes too much and (2) the author doesn't like that they contract out work to consultants who think diversity is good. And everything after that is LESS significant.

Every point made, so far as I can tell:

  • Have assets worth $1.1 billion as of 2021
  • Mozilla spent less on "expenses" from 2021 relative to 2020
  • Revenue went up over the same time
  • A lot of revenue was from royalties (e.g. agreements for default search)
  • They disagree with the wording on a donate form about whether Mozilla "relies" on individual donations
  • The CEO made $5.6MM
  • They pulled out one expense, which appears to have been training/education relating to social justice topics
  • They pull out a few more individual expenses and weren't sure what they were.

This isn't secret documents being handed to Deep Throat in a dark parking lot. There's no smoking gun, no smoke, just a PDF with ordinary tables of expenses and revenue, and consultants who did diversity training. If that's shady then, get ready to be mad about every non-profit ever.

[–] TCB13@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It’s a blog post from someone who never read a 990 before (standard nonprofit disclosure form) who thinks every other line of is proof of a scandal.

Only in the USA a "non profits" turns profit. 😂

[–] abbenm@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Pretty sure all non-profits strive to be cash flow positive, in the United States and otherwise.

[–] AProfessional@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

There is a distinct type called a not-for-profit.

[–] abbenm@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Should Mozilla be a not-for-profit instead? Trying to figure out the upshot of that distinction as it relates to this thread.

[–] AProfessional@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

No of course not. It’s for very limited businesses like clubs. Obviously you can’t grow or really make products under that structure.

It was just a fun fact they do exist.

[–] ferralcat@monyet.cc 14 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I will never understand how people expect software to gather no telemetry or metrics whatsoever.

[–] root@precious.net 18 points 8 months ago (1 children)

We did fine without it for a very long time. We still do with a lot of software. It's called voluntarily submitting a bug report and/or core dump.

[–] amju_wolf@pawb.social 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

If you ask a user to show you a "core dump" they're more likely to shit on their floor and send you a photo than do what you actually mean.

Telemetry is absolutely crucial in determining what to focus on in development, to fix issues the users might not even realize exist. Especially for projects that aim at the general public. As long as it's communicated clearly, used truly only for development purposes and an opt-out is available there's nothing wrong about it.

[–] root@precious.net 2 points 8 months ago

You don't use the technical term, but you do ask.

I'm not against telemetry, I'm against making it hundreds of different hidden options.

[–] Takumidesh@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago

Especially software with hundreds of millions of users, that constantly has to deal with bleeding edge attack vectors and compatibility.

[–] RuikkaaPrus@lemmy.ml 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Firefox is better than most, no double there, but at the same time they do have some shady finances.

I'm not going to refute this because it seems to me that article are right in several points. Also, we have to be honest, Mozilla is kind of stupid sometimes.

But if you care about the default search engine or privacy settings, you really just need to do some hardening and tweaks to make it very private in general. Chromium doesn't have any of these settings, it even doesn't have RFP btw.

and they also do stuff like adding unique IDs to each installation.

Looks like you can download Firefox through the Mozilla's official HTTP/FTP repository that doesn't trigger this ID token generation. Also this article motivates people to download Firefox installer from Softonic's page:

Firefox users who prefer to download the browser without the unique identifier may do so in the following two ways:

  1. Download the Firefox installer from Mozilla's HTTPS repository (formerly the FTP repository).
  2. Download Firefox from third-party download sites that host the installer, e.g., from Softonic.

Softonic have a really nice and privacy respectful privacy policy (obviously that's not the case) in contrast with randomized pretty anonymous unique ID triggered by Firefox installer download. Mozilla's generated ID feels more like a download counter than a tracker indeed.

I'm not trying to justify the Mozilla's problems. They makes silly things sometimes, but being realistic, they do a better job taking care of their users privacy more than Google or even Brave.

[–] TCB13@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

we have to be honest, Mozilla is kind of stupid sometimes.

Yes.

Looks like you can download Firefox through the Mozilla’s official HTTP/FTP repository that doesn’t trigger this ID token generation. Also this article motivates people to download Firefox installer from Softonic’s page:

Yes, but still having to go around the main download page to get an untracked version is kind of annoying. Fuck Softonic, the rest of the information about the IDs still holds true.

[–] aniki@lemm.ee 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I've never wiresharked my workstation to verify but I absolutely review my DNS logs on my pihole and I have never seen what you're describing.

[–] TCB13@lemmy.world -2 points 8 months ago

Go ahead then.