FOSS is of course fundamental, this I have never doubted, by allowing collaborative creation in a new project, which allows development better than in a company with a few less efficient devs. The main reason for FOSS is precisely this, what many forget and confuse FOSS with security, privacy and a free internet, which is deeply wrong, these concepts are not synonymous with FOSS, they depend on too many other factors.
Because of this the most among of FOSS is used and developed by this big companies, by this way they can use Devs freelance. That is what I mean that Free Soft has nothing to do with Free Internet.
Yes a browser is a client soft, but nevertheless it is perfectly capable of sending user data, as we see in many of them, especially if it is used with synchronization functions to have the data of several devices.
This does not necessarily have to do with whether they are FOSS or not, although the main ones that have these practices coincide with large companies, Chrome, EDGE, Safari, Opera since it belongs to a Chinese company, Brave selectively with its system of not blocking sponsors and Firefox is not completely spared either.
Today I have seen a good example of how much different browsers protect the user on a well-known website, in AutoCAD web app, which is freely accessible with Chrome, Edge and Firefox, while blocking Vivaldi, UR and Dissenter.
Analyzing this page it turned out that it records the inputs of the keyboard, mouse and mouse movements, sending the data to third parties.
Again, I’m not saying that FOSS guarantees things like security and privacy, rather that it’s a prerequisite. The best case scenario is software developed in the open without any commercial involvement. However, software developed by companies in the open is still strictly preferable to closed software. As I’ve already explained, my view is that it would be a worse situation if Chromium became the only engine in town, and that’s the reason Firefox is a very important project. I don’t think Google should be the sole company making a browser engine.
Google is unfortunately the dominant company on the net, but this will not change with using Firefox or another browser with Gecko, with a market presence of less than 2% and also dependent on Google. Even old, outdated IE has more users than Firefox today.
For this reason, I do not believe that the path to a free internet is there.
The only way to achieve freedom on the web is not to prefer one or the other browser or software license, but to end the surveillance practices used by these companies. It is useless to use instead of Chromium, another from a company that also uses these practices, I think.
Who develops a software is not so important then, without the surveillance of the user for commercial interests, then only matters who offers the best products or services.
TOR and the Onion network were developed by the US defense and its secret services.
Google may be the dominant company on the net, but that doesn’t mean alternatives should be abandoned. IE used to be the dominant browser just like Chrome is today, and it was displaced in a couple of decades. Thinking that Chromium is the end of browser technology is incredibly myopic.
The only way to achieve freedom on the web is to ensure that true FOSS solutions survive going forward. Firefox is currently the best hope for the future of browsers. Who develops the software is incredibly important, and that’s a demonstrable fact. Google is driven by commercial interests, and it continues to introduce features like AMP that are hostile towards open web while removing APIs that make ad blockers work.
IE was just dropped by a better browser from the same company.
Authentic FOSS is never going to be abandoned, even though the biggest producers are these big companies, simply for reasons of adaptability and development, useful for both private devs and big companies.
That Firefox exists or not, will not change much, they are equally managed and depending on Google, because it is Google that determines the standards and Web formats and also Firefox has to orient itself to these standards so as not to lose compatibility.
As you can see, it is not about browser technology and which of these we use. It is that these surveillance techniques are not incorporated. Trackers and fingerprintings are no longer a problem, these can be easily blocked, either by the browser itself or through extensions, so Google and others already use more advanced techniques, such as FLOC, Pixel ads, Idle API, Network Info, E-Tag tracking, Header sniffing…and so on, apart from these reCaptchas when you register in a web. This is the real problem in the web and what makes it the property of Google, not if you use one or the other browser.
IE was originally dethroned by Firefox and Chrome. This happened around a decade before MS came out with Edge. Again, your statement that Firefox is dependent on Google is simply not correct. The standards still have to go through 3WC, and Mozilla existing as an independent entity is pretty much the only reason this is still happening. Meanwhile, companies making browsers based on Chromium are entirely dependent on Google.
It’s also absolutely false that trackers and fingerprinting are no longer a problem or can be blocked. It’s pretty much impossible to block tracking at this point unless you use Tor. In fact, browser extensions meant to block tracking can themselves be used to track you because they can end up creating a unique fingerprint.
Things like AMP and plans for removing hooks used by ad blocker are far bigger concerns for me.
Unfortunately, even with TOR it is not possible to avoid tracking completely, it can only be alleviated, which all privacy oriented browsers do with only slight differences.
Even more so using a VPN whose use is becoming increasingly essential, apart from a whole series of extensions (Trace and SiteBleacher are good choices, also for Firefox)
Firefox is no exception to this either.
And yes, Mozilla is dependent on Google, apart from receiving its income through it and its services, apart from it is also obliged to use certain APIs, so as not to lose compatibility with many pages, since it is Google, as I said before, that determines a large part of the web format, either directly or indirectly.
Chromium, if used as is, is naturally filled with all sorts of APIs that allow Google to track the user, but at least Vivaldi removes most of them or leaves it to the user’s choice in the Privacy settings (which don’t do any other Chromium).
That Chromium is a Google product does not mean that it depends on it, more than TOR does not depend on the US defense and the CIA, precisely because they are FOSS products, Google can only add things that allow tracking and it is a matter of the different Devs of the forks to eliminate them, what Vivaldi does (like FLOC, Idle API and others), for this reason it always takes a week or so, until Vivaldi has an update, after Chromium does. If I desactivate in it’s privacy settings all the Google API’s, it’s even impossible to acces any Google services or pages que depends to Google, because of this, Vivaldi let do it in the settings to the like of the user, that is, Vivaldi is as private as the user want it.
We can not forget that Google, apart from its way of spying on the user, on the other hand offers the best services and applications, many of them without real alternative, in the educational environment for schools and universities, professional, scientific, things like StreetView, YouTube, where we can only use Front-ends or clients … etc).
We can only hope that, by law we force him to return to his original motto ‘Don’t be evil’, since it is only the problem of his user tracking, which advises to avoid it, no other.
Vivaldi is the only browser company, which is active against these user surveillance practices, nor is Mozilla on this list, nor is any other of the large American companies, for which the user is obviously only a commodity.
Being able to render pages is not an example of Mozilla being dependent on Google at all. Firefox internal implementation is not dependent on Chromium or the decisions that Google makes.
Meanwhile, Vivaldi can remove superficial changes, but if Google makes big structural changes in Chromium, then Vivaldi would have to fork the project and at that point they’re in exact same boat as Mozilla. They’d need a ton of funding to maintain an alternative engine. This is the fundamental problem with relying on Chromium as your base. This works as long as Google doesn’t move it in a direction hostile to users.
Companies basing their products on Chromium 100% depend on it. And we already know that the law can’t really touch Google at this point. It’s an international monstrosity that’s not answerable to pretty much any government. The fact that many people are already dependent on Google shows the risk of using their technology.
And you once again mischaracterize which is a non-profit foundation as opposed to a commercial company trying to commodify users. Vivaldi presents a far greater risk for that being driven by profit.
It is clear that Google in many Chromium updates, also adds some dirty trick to be able to track the user, but so far the Vivaldi Team has also eliminated it again, before releasing the update for users. They are very good at this.
About web formats, I am not talking about the fact that browsers can render a page or not, this is done by Gecko, Blink and WebKit more or less equally well, I am talking about different page formats that require one or another Google API, for example Crypto Tokens (It is a Google API that in Vivaldi can be deactivated in the configuration), without these it is not possible, for example, to log in on many pages, because they do not accept you as a safe browser.
Google does not need to lend a lot of hand to Chromium, if it is Google that today determines the web standards, no other.
The vast majority of websites are oriented to these standards and use plug-ins from Google and others, whether you like it or not.
FOSS is of course fundamental, this I have never doubted, by allowing collaborative creation in a new project, which allows development better than in a company with a few less efficient devs. The main reason for FOSS is precisely this, what many forget and confuse FOSS with security, privacy and a free internet, which is deeply wrong, these concepts are not synonymous with FOSS, they depend on too many other factors. Because of this the most among of FOSS is used and developed by this big companies, by this way they can use Devs freelance. That is what I mean that Free Soft has nothing to do with Free Internet.
Yes a browser is a client soft, but nevertheless it is perfectly capable of sending user data, as we see in many of them, especially if it is used with synchronization functions to have the data of several devices.
This does not necessarily have to do with whether they are FOSS or not, although the main ones that have these practices coincide with large companies, Chrome, EDGE, Safari, Opera since it belongs to a Chinese company, Brave selectively with its system of not blocking sponsors and Firefox is not completely spared either.
Today I have seen a good example of how much different browsers protect the user on a well-known website, in AutoCAD web app, which is freely accessible with Chrome, Edge and Firefox, while blocking Vivaldi, UR and Dissenter. Analyzing this page it turned out that it records the inputs of the keyboard, mouse and mouse movements, sending the data to third parties.
Again, I’m not saying that FOSS guarantees things like security and privacy, rather that it’s a prerequisite. The best case scenario is software developed in the open without any commercial involvement. However, software developed by companies in the open is still strictly preferable to closed software. As I’ve already explained, my view is that it would be a worse situation if Chromium became the only engine in town, and that’s the reason Firefox is a very important project. I don’t think Google should be the sole company making a browser engine.
Google is unfortunately the dominant company on the net, but this will not change with using Firefox or another browser with Gecko, with a market presence of less than 2% and also dependent on Google. Even old, outdated IE has more users than Firefox today. For this reason, I do not believe that the path to a free internet is there. The only way to achieve freedom on the web is not to prefer one or the other browser or software license, but to end the surveillance practices used by these companies. It is useless to use instead of Chromium, another from a company that also uses these practices, I think.
Who develops a software is not so important then, without the surveillance of the user for commercial interests, then only matters who offers the best products or services. TOR and the Onion network were developed by the US defense and its secret services.
Google may be the dominant company on the net, but that doesn’t mean alternatives should be abandoned. IE used to be the dominant browser just like Chrome is today, and it was displaced in a couple of decades. Thinking that Chromium is the end of browser technology is incredibly myopic.
The only way to achieve freedom on the web is to ensure that true FOSS solutions survive going forward. Firefox is currently the best hope for the future of browsers. Who develops the software is incredibly important, and that’s a demonstrable fact. Google is driven by commercial interests, and it continues to introduce features like AMP that are hostile towards open web while removing APIs that make ad blockers work.
IE was just dropped by a better browser from the same company. Authentic FOSS is never going to be abandoned, even though the biggest producers are these big companies, simply for reasons of adaptability and development, useful for both private devs and big companies. That Firefox exists or not, will not change much, they are equally managed and depending on Google, because it is Google that determines the standards and Web formats and also Firefox has to orient itself to these standards so as not to lose compatibility. As you can see, it is not about browser technology and which of these we use. It is that these surveillance techniques are not incorporated. Trackers and fingerprintings are no longer a problem, these can be easily blocked, either by the browser itself or through extensions, so Google and others already use more advanced techniques, such as FLOC, Pixel ads, Idle API, Network Info, E-Tag tracking, Header sniffing…and so on, apart from these reCaptchas when you register in a web. This is the real problem in the web and what makes it the property of Google, not if you use one or the other browser.
IE was originally dethroned by Firefox and Chrome. This happened around a decade before MS came out with Edge. Again, your statement that Firefox is dependent on Google is simply not correct. The standards still have to go through 3WC, and Mozilla existing as an independent entity is pretty much the only reason this is still happening. Meanwhile, companies making browsers based on Chromium are entirely dependent on Google.
It’s also absolutely false that trackers and fingerprinting are no longer a problem or can be blocked. It’s pretty much impossible to block tracking at this point unless you use Tor. In fact, browser extensions meant to block tracking can themselves be used to track you because they can end up creating a unique fingerprint.
Things like AMP and plans for removing hooks used by ad blocker are far bigger concerns for me.
Unfortunately, even with TOR it is not possible to avoid tracking completely, it can only be alleviated, which all privacy oriented browsers do with only slight differences. Even more so using a VPN whose use is becoming increasingly essential, apart from a whole series of extensions (Trace and SiteBleacher are good choices, also for Firefox) Firefox is no exception to this either.
And yes, Mozilla is dependent on Google, apart from receiving its income through it and its services, apart from it is also obliged to use certain APIs, so as not to lose compatibility with many pages, since it is Google, as I said before, that determines a large part of the web format, either directly or indirectly. Chromium, if used as is, is naturally filled with all sorts of APIs that allow Google to track the user, but at least Vivaldi removes most of them or leaves it to the user’s choice in the Privacy settings (which don’t do any other Chromium).
That Chromium is a Google product does not mean that it depends on it, more than TOR does not depend on the US defense and the CIA, precisely because they are FOSS products, Google can only add things that allow tracking and it is a matter of the different Devs of the forks to eliminate them, what Vivaldi does (like FLOC, Idle API and others), for this reason it always takes a week or so, until Vivaldi has an update, after Chromium does. If I desactivate in it’s privacy settings all the Google API’s, it’s even impossible to acces any Google services or pages que depends to Google, because of this, Vivaldi let do it in the settings to the like of the user, that is, Vivaldi is as private as the user want it.
We can not forget that Google, apart from its way of spying on the user, on the other hand offers the best services and applications, many of them without real alternative, in the educational environment for schools and universities, professional, scientific, things like StreetView, YouTube, where we can only use Front-ends or clients … etc).
We can only hope that, by law we force him to return to his original motto ‘Don’t be evil’, since it is only the problem of his user tracking, which advises to avoid it, no other.
Vivaldi is the only browser company, which is active against these user surveillance practices, nor is Mozilla on this list, nor is any other of the large American companies, for which the user is obviously only a commodity.
Being able to render pages is not an example of Mozilla being dependent on Google at all. Firefox internal implementation is not dependent on Chromium or the decisions that Google makes.
Meanwhile, Vivaldi can remove superficial changes, but if Google makes big structural changes in Chromium, then Vivaldi would have to fork the project and at that point they’re in exact same boat as Mozilla. They’d need a ton of funding to maintain an alternative engine. This is the fundamental problem with relying on Chromium as your base. This works as long as Google doesn’t move it in a direction hostile to users.
Companies basing their products on Chromium 100% depend on it. And we already know that the law can’t really touch Google at this point. It’s an international monstrosity that’s not answerable to pretty much any government. The fact that many people are already dependent on Google shows the risk of using their technology.
And you once again mischaracterize which is a non-profit foundation as opposed to a commercial company trying to commodify users. Vivaldi presents a far greater risk for that being driven by profit.
It is clear that Google in many Chromium updates, also adds some dirty trick to be able to track the user, but so far the Vivaldi Team has also eliminated it again, before releasing the update for users. They are very good at this.
About web formats, I am not talking about the fact that browsers can render a page or not, this is done by Gecko, Blink and WebKit more or less equally well, I am talking about different page formats that require one or another Google API, for example Crypto Tokens (It is a Google API that in Vivaldi can be deactivated in the configuration), without these it is not possible, for example, to log in on many pages, because they do not accept you as a safe browser.
Google does not need to lend a lot of hand to Chromium, if it is Google that today determines the web standards, no other. The vast majority of websites are oriented to these standards and use plug-ins from Google and others, whether you like it or not.