Summary of their take? Don’t really want to watch.
Manjaro has made its bed with past behavior and now has to lie in it.
Any decision they make like this will be viewed with distrust and suspicion. Most likely they are on the take for this, and that the money will go directly into the company (of two).
6 Likes
I saw that video on my flow. Honestly, it would be more appropriate to reflect the “real” situation as is, both in text and picture on the thumbnail. As it is, it serves as a click bait?
4 Likes
What is wrong with Vivaldi browser ?
Only reason why I still using Firefox , is 120 Hz refresh rate on phone. Other browsers have 60 hz and that is not so smooth xD
And I need sync between laptop and phone 
1 Like
It’s proprietary.
This means, among other things, you cannot check its source code. This, in turn, means that it can1 contain malware that can, among other things, log everything you do online and a lot of things you do offline, and sell it to some third-party data collector to be used for targeted advertising, if not for more nefarious things…
Using a proprietary web browser is extremely foolish and careless.
The most common reason distros include proprietary browsers in their default installs is money. That said, I don’t have any inside information into why Manjaro decided to install Vivaldi. It may be just a careless decision by one of the community edition devs, or it may be something more nefarious, or I could be completely wrong… I don’t know and, since I do not use Manjaro any more, I don’t particularly care.
1and therefore it probably does, because why wouldn’t it? It is simply too profitable to miss out on it.
11 Likes
“probably” being the keyword here? Otherwise, I can see your concern but most of it is “fine” speculation?
1 Like
Thanks for nice explanation
2 Likes
Well, since it is proprietary, there is no easy way to know for sure whether it does or it doesn’t. So of course, it is all speculation.
However, consider these three facts:
-
The possibility to include malware that spies on the users certainly exists in any proprietary software, but especially in proprietary browsers.
-
Selling data about users’ online behaviour is extremely profitable, it can make the developers a lot of money. The temptation to do so certainly exists.
-
The proprietary browser comes at no monetary charge for the end user. The developers are not making any money by selling you a copy of the browser. Yet, they really want you to use their browser, and are investing a lot of money in marketing.
Given these three facts, the only sensible thing is to assume that malware exists in any proprietary browser. Or, to put it in other words, by using a proprietary web browser, you are trusting strangers with data that, if leaked (either by mistake or on purpose) can potentially significantly harm you, including, but not limited to: it can be used to blackmail you, discriminate against you, get you in trouble with the political regime, steal your identity and passwords and use it to commit crime, etc. etc…
8 Likes
3 Likes
What I wanted to say is that:
“It can contain malware…and therefore it probably does.”
won’t add upp logically to me. The addition of “…because why it shouldn’t?” doesn’t really put some more weight on it.
Your three point explanation makes a lot of sense and might add to the probability of why the code might include such “malware” but still there is a distance between what is probable and what is being the case in actuality.
I guess in this and a lot of other similar cases we will be in the dark in this regard. What we might be able to do do is perhaps to fine tune our speculations?
In the end, it all comes down to blind trust in the software proprietor.
They have the motive. They have the opportunity. There have been are countless examples of data leaks and cyber attacks that got a lot of end users into big trouble.
Even if you could definitely prove that a certain proprietary application is not violating its users’ privacy, the next update can completely change that.
The alternative is simple: do not use a proprietary web browser, especially since because freedom-respecting alternatives exist. A crazy idea, I know.
3 Likes
This I understand.
This not so much. In this specific case if there are not any hard evidence for the following.
Has been any reports about Vivaldi engaging in this kind of behavior? I know it can do such things, but does it?
No, not so a crazy of an idea. It might sound crazy that even I do use an open-source browser. I don’t particularly care for Vivaldi.
2 Likes
The motive is money.
3 Likes
I hope you realize that the burden of proof is on you when it comes to the enumeration of all the ill that “Vivaldi” is capable of doing and it is actually doing it.
3 Likes
Of course I understand that. I understand that the existence of opportunity (closed source) and motive (money) does not necessarily mean that someone is guilty of any wrongdoing, of course.
However, as I argued above, it is foolish and careless to have blind trust in a complete stranger who has the opportunity and the motive to screw you over.
4 Likes
This is called good opsec.
And it’s pretty ridiculous to even argue about it…
For example, imagine situation where you leave your child in a school with teacher, who is a well known convicted child murderer and rapist, and also have access to weapons.
Would you want to scientifically prove your hypothesis that he may have good intentions now, or would you rather default to risk-mitigation of not giving your child to such school and person?
Point being - you don’t test a tiger by pulling his whiskers. 
Coz he’s predator with teeth…And browsers are predatory by nature as well.
As a general statement, I agree with this.
1 Like
And since this has nothing to do with Vivaldi… your point is moot. I am far more concerned with people using Brave, since it’s founder is actively anti-freedom and pro-discrimination AND it is a vehicle for crypto scams.
4 Likes
Summay is that Techhut approves, since Vivaldi is his favorite browser and he thinks Firefox functionality is bad.
1 Like