Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Question about Web Browsers other than Firefox.


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Warthog-Fan

Warthog-Fan

  • Members
  • 295 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Endicott, NY
  • Local time:05:47 AM

Posted 25 August 2017 - 12:53 PM

I've been using Firefox for my web browser for quite a few years. Recently, an online Vlogger stated that the developers of Firefox had received a very large donation from a wealthy European Donor, and the Firefox developers had suddenly decided that it would be a good idea if they started to incorporate filtering of the web content that is presented to their users, to filter out "objectionable material". Apparently, "objectionable material" is whatever the Donor thinks is objectionable. The Vlogger suggested that, in the interest of avoiding censorship, internet users start to use alternate browsers, and a few he named were Pale Moon, Water Fox, and Brave. I downloaded Pale Moon and gave it a try and it works pretty much like Firefox. The one difference is that I see a lot of in-line ads being inserted that are not there when I browse the same page with Firefox. So this leads me to ask:

 

1) Does anyone else have much experience with Pale Moon, Water Fox or Brave?

 

2) How secure are these other browsers compared to Firefox? With all of the recent discussions about malware being contained in online advertising, I'm a little reluctant to switch to a browser that might be less secure.

 

3) Are there other browsers that you've used that work well and are less friendly to advertising?

 

Thanks in advance.



BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 9,005 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:05:47 AM

Posted 25 August 2017 - 12:57 PM

I would suggest that you find any other source to corroborate what you've read.


Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (website in my user profile) - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 

     . . . the presumption of innocence, while essential in the legal realm, does not mean the elimination of common sense outside it.  The willing suspension of disbelief has its limits, or should.

    ~ Ruth Marcus,  November 10, 2017, in Washington Post article, Bannon is right: It’s no coincidence The Post broke the Moore story


 

 

 

              

 


#3 Warthog-Fan

Warthog-Fan
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 295 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Endicott, NY
  • Local time:05:47 AM

Posted 25 August 2017 - 02:55 PM

Well, here are a couple of links:

 

From the Business Insider:  http://www.businessinsider.com/mozilla-new-initiative-counter-fake-news-2017-8

 

From Mozilla:   https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/08/08/mozilla-information-trust-initiative-building-movement-fight-misinformation-online/

 

From Poynter:   https://www.poynter.org/2017/mozilla-wants-to-matter-more-in-the-fight-against-misinformation/469525/

 

I guess I misspoke when I used the term "objectionable content". What they plan to do is to filter out "fake news". I suppose the problem here is, who decides what is "fake news" and what is "real news". I guess I (and a lot of other users) would like to look at everything that's out there and decide what is true and what isn't. Personally, I believe very little of what comes out of the mainstream media, But that's just my opinion.

 

But to get back to the original question, does anyone have experience with other browsers besides Firefox, especially as related to online security?



#4 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 9,005 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:05:47 AM

Posted 25 August 2017 - 03:49 PM

Depending on what you mean by "online security" you could get a number of different answers.

 

It's well known that Google Chrome's sandboxing architecture is right up there near the top for preventing a number of common types of infection.  But, since it is a Google product anyone has perfectly legitimate reason to question what data may or may not be being collected by Chrome.   Since it's based on the open-source Chromium browser that would be one worth considering.

 

When it comes right down to it, in any discussion of security other than a really broad one, you really need to define what it is that you're most interested in securing against.  If a given product is excellent at securing against what interests you, but "meh" against other common threats, versus one that's better at all those other common threats but not as good as the former against the thing that interests you, this can affect people's calculus about both quite differently.

 

Not that you've asked the question this way, but this is the very reason I hate any, "What is the best X?," question for virtually anything.  "Best" has to be rated against some set criteria.  It is not an abstract state.  And your criteria (for any you) and my criteria may be different.   If what one wants to know is, "What <insert product type here> do you like best, and why?," to gather data to guide one's own selection process that is a perfectly reasonable question.


Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (website in my user profile) - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 

     . . . the presumption of innocence, while essential in the legal realm, does not mean the elimination of common sense outside it.  The willing suspension of disbelief has its limits, or should.

    ~ Ruth Marcus,  November 10, 2017, in Washington Post article, Bannon is right: It’s no coincidence The Post broke the Moore story


 

 

 

              

 


#5 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 9,005 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:05:47 AM

Posted 25 August 2017 - 03:56 PM

. . . What they plan to do is to filter out "fake news". I suppose the problem here is, who decides what is "fake news" and what is "real news". I guess I (and a lot of other users) would like to look at everything that's out there and decide what is true and what isn't. Personally, I believe very little of what comes out of the mainstream media, But that's just my opinion.

 

Just wanted to talk about this as an aside and separately from your main question.

 

There was a time when "everything that's out there" was the news and what is commonly referred to now as "yellow journalism" and "tabloid sensationalism" was as much the norm in print as it is today in cybermedia.   The profession of journalism grew in a long, slow progression to arrive at the sort of news media we had during most of the latter half of the 20th century, before infotainment became common and it became trendy to consider "fair and balanced" as meaning to present outrageous and provable falsehood as a counterpoint to factual truth.

 

I support anything that gets us back to the state where journalists, whatever the medium, practice professional news journalism again.  Filtering out fake news is not a challenge in the vast majority of cases.  News content and editorial content both must be predicated on actual facts that all can observe, even if the take away from said facts will be slightly different.   There are no "alternative facts" though there may certainly be differing opinions.


Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (website in my user profile) - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1803, Build 17134 

     . . . the presumption of innocence, while essential in the legal realm, does not mean the elimination of common sense outside it.  The willing suspension of disbelief has its limits, or should.

    ~ Ruth Marcus,  November 10, 2017, in Washington Post article, Bannon is right: It’s no coincidence The Post broke the Moore story


 

 

 

              

 


#6 dropbear

dropbear

  • Members
  • 134 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane
  • Local time:07:47 PM

Posted 25 August 2017 - 05:14 PM

@warthog,

 

as Brian has already stated, "what is the best" is way too subjective to give you an answer that wouldn't be personally biased based on my experiences.

 

I can tell you, have a look at Opera and SlimJet in your search for a comparison to Firefox.

 

with Firefox's user base falling below 15%, I thought it was time to start looking myself for an alternative, I tried Waterefox, SeaMonkey, Opera, SlimJet.

I've narrowed it down to the last two, and for the last month have been solely taking SlimJet for a spin.

I like how it can be fully customised, even the default search engines you can add extra URL parameters to them that I could do in FF.  handy in making DDG always search with Strict Search turned off by default.

 

sadly you'll have to take a few for a spin before you find one you like.

 

happy hunting. :)


Instead of reading this, why not do a backup of your PC.

You won't regret it.


#7 Warthog-Fan

Warthog-Fan
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 295 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Endicott, NY
  • Local time:05:47 AM

Posted 27 August 2017 - 10:26 AM

Guys,

 

Thank you for the input on this. I will check out the different browser programs that have been mentioned here. I appreciate your taking the time to respond to my question.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users