been a Brave user for many years , but recently there’s a little problem that i tried all kinda fixes but nothing works . Apparently it’s like that with all chromium browsers. And it does the same on the different distros iv’e tried.
here’s the scenario : if graphics acceleration is off ,sites shows fine but netflix graphics are shait.
if graphics acceleration is on , i get these weird blocks on sites , and netflix plays ok.
anyway , weird , but i fixed it by going with firefox and everything just works now lol.
at this moment i don’t care whatever politics or whatever is going on at mozilla , as long as my browser works normally
seems like there would be more factors not just the accel on/off button.
I’ve never opened Endeavour in ungoogled chromium, that’s a work browser, but I’ve seen no goofiness like that with hard accel enabled.
I believe you that you’ve seen in all chromiums though. I can’t help thinking as far as your computer there is a factor X that is culpable in that ‘blockiness’.
But if you are happy with FF that’s all that matters.
Yea idk, always had acceleration on in brave with no problems (on same pc) . This started happening i would take a wild ques about 2months ago maybe?
But FF is ok ,never really was a fan of FF but now ima learn to love it
Oh and its not just on eos its everywhere
Vivaldi is free from the turd that is present in other Chromium based browsers. Like Brave, Opera, Microsoft Edge, etc. And if Mozilla foundation goes belly up it will be my fall back browser.
The link above shows how privacy badger is redundant beginning with FF.86.
Furthermore Privacy Badger no longer uses heuristics by default, and if you do enable it then it makes you more identifiable through canvas fingerprinting.
The only one you actually ‘need’ is ublock:origin and I am rather confident it is better than any other adblock solution you would have been using - whether by extensions or whatever brave does by default (which was tracking you last time I checked .. and dont they do ‘acceptable ads’ like adblock plus?).
They changed their terms to be more legally correct - as, depending on interpretation, certain jurisdictions may very well believe mozilla needs expressed permission to ‘handle your data’ even if all it is doing is sending it as expected.. you know, like a browser would need to do in order to browse.
It looks like the article linked is one of the many either confused, trying to garner extra clicks, or has some other motivation for being intentionally misleading.
As to sections regarding “Acceptable Use Policy” .. it again seems pretty straight-forward, despite it being consistently mischaracterized.