Manjaro Cinamon + Vivaldi TechHuts take on that

I don’t think this is a very good analogy, because Vivaldi’s developers have not been involved in any serious scandal, to my knowledge.

I think a better example would be this: in a hypothetical school, there have been many cases of children being sold into slavery. Some teachers got in trouble for that, some haven’t. There is no proof whatsoever that the teacher of your child (let’s call him Antonio) ever did anything wrong. He seems like a nice guy. But you know that:

  1. he could get a lot of money by selling your child (motive),
  2. he has the opportunity to do so, and the ability to get away with it,
  3. he really wants to teach your child even though he doesn’t get paid by the school to do so (in fact, he is even willing to pay out of his own pocket for advertising his teaching services),
  4. he insists on teaching your child in private, you cannot be present or record it (lack of transparency), and
  5. you don’t know him personally.

Of course, you can’t throw Antonio in prison for selling children, he is innocent until proven guilty. For all you know, he could be a great guy, self-sacrificing for a noble cause in a world otherwise filled with depravity. If that were the case, it would be most unfair to condemn him!

However, would you leave your child with Antonio? Or would you rather choose a teacher who has no issue with full transparency and is willing to teach your child in your presence or while being recorded on camera?

2 Likes

I would care anything at all about your post if you present any evidence that in this particular case, Vivaldi has been caught red-handed, being a “child murderer and rapist”. By the way two of your most “compelling” arguments when it comes to similar issues. I recall you had the same “argument” about WSL for quite a while ago.

1 Like

This is my definition of web-browser and it’s creators motives “as is” when it’s proprietary, in my analogy, because there were countless examples already.

If you want to test it - of course you can, but why would you want to do that?
To prove what?

That proprietary software can be not malicious in some point of time?
Yes it can, but next second it’s switches hands it’s already not.

It is just argument for a sake of argument.

Like i’ve said, browser is a very dangerous predator (to your privacy and security) by definition, it’s a tiger.
And you don’t test a tiger by pulling his whiskers…
He might let you do it once or twice, but eventually he’ll kill you. :tiger2:

And yes, of course my WSL point is exactly the same - good opsec means to avoid potential dangers, i’m sure it’s already abused by hackers and in few years we’ll see proof of that, but if you want to try - it’s your call. I think it’s very bad idea to use dual-boot with Win10+ since you know that Microsoft is extremely malicious predator in all it’s history and now we know that it has ability to access Linux filesystems / partitions.

1 Like

More statements needing proofs?

Ah… there they are. Well I am out of this thread for the next few years.

:desert_island:

1 Like

Hey, since you’re a proponent of scientific proof and big lover of sophistry…

How about you find a proof of after-life existence for me?

Sure, we know it’s pretty dangerous!
And i’m saying it is not really valuable for us mortals now and here, and if it doesn’t exist it’s 50/50 chance it will be the end, but…

I REALLY wanna know…you can’t know for sure without a proof…and i’m so very bad at proving my statements :face_with_hand_over_mouth:

I just couldn’t possibly find out without your deep expertise :sweat_smile:

P.S. Oooor…we can not do that like we could not use proprietary browsers or WSL :upside_down_face:

Ok!

Just give a moment to bade farewell to my loved ones before killing myself.

If there is an afterlife, I will find a way to send you and E2E encrypted message to let you know and give you some tips about how best prepare yourself for your departure.

PS

I appreciate the first part of your statement. Not at all your attempt at belittling in the second. Just so you know!

3 Likes

For the record:

Kids, please don’t repeat that at home!
There are professionals working on it.

:sweat_smile:

2 Likes

I am not sure I can get to “Because it is proprietary and provided at no cost they must be selling your data”

Vivaldi makes money from advertising and search engine placement at the very least.

From my perspective, I don’t know of any actions taken by Vivaldi which have violated the trust of their users. I would rather support a closed-source organization I find trustworthy than an open source product from an organization I don’t find trustworthy. i.e. I would use Vivaldi over Brave.

9 Likes

True - Brave is definitely not good, but still you’d not use both of those for yourself, because it’s kinda false dichotomy? :upside_down_face:

When choosing between two evils - it’s best to choose none.

2 Likes

What I don’t get, why not firefox?! I don’t see any advantages using another proprietary browser, except if something specific is not running.

I just need to read webpages, watch videos, bookmark, and sync my bookmarks. Also need a pwd manager, and firefox has extensions to integrate. Else still don’t get it why there is so much dislike for firefox. Has it something to do with mozilla?

2 Likes

wonder if Manjaro Cinamon most popular download of community editions :wink:

think J hit point in other thread :innocent:

Well, it’s easy for them to gain my trust: open the source code.

4 Likes

Because some people prefer different browsers?

But not everyone has the same needs as you and Vivaldi has a bunch of additional features that some people find useful.

:man_shrugging:

Personally, I use Firefox because it has more support for privacy than any other browser. That being said, there is no doubt that Chromium-based browsers are more compatible.

3 Likes

Well, there is ungoogled Chromium, a perfectly fine browser if one does not like Firefox.

There is really no need to have a proprietary browser. The concept itself is absurd.

1 Like

I use Vivaldi in Windows 10 as my default browser and I have no issue with it for what it is.

Informed choice should be used on proprietary software.

Being in the repo and installing it with explicit consent from the user is different than shipped on the OS that has historically been open-source with their default apps.

1 Like

Well, if you’re going to use Windows 10 you may as well use any browser, as there is no greater malware than the operating system itself. Caring about privacy on windoze is like being afraid of burning yourself on a match, while you’re in a house that is on fire.

2 Likes

Only for gaming, I compartmentalize my stuff. :wink:

1 Like

For sure, but I feel that many are not using firefox because they have never really tried firefox or heard other people not using it or criticizing it.

I have rarely heard a rational argument, so was just wondering why not? It is possible that firefox misses some features but I seriously don’t know which ones.

So why would a linux distro replace an open source web browser with a proprietary one? That just doesn’t make sense to me. The users can always install what they want afterwards or break their system with non repo packages…

I still believe that this type of choices from linux distros hurts open source and therefore linux. If we reduce user adoption for mozilla, this could kill that project in the long run. It almost happened to my understanding, like thunderbird was almost shut down.

Edit: GNU/linux

Vivaldi has tons of features that Firefox doesn’t have, if you used it, I think they would be obvious. Additionally is more compatible with websites.

Don’t take this the wrong way, I am a Firefox user. I just think that to dismiss it completely is pretty unfair.

Also, don’t forget is that many Linux users, especially those who are not enthusiasts like we have here on the forum, are not open source advocates and don’t care if something is proprietary or not.

4 Likes

Firefox made some wild turns and leaving users negatively stunned, like changing addon policy, overturning look and feel a few times, Firefox sync has changed, also Firefox profile folders
went uncopatible over version changes, shutting out some users, …
I think they should have kept backward compatibility, and they should have made the GUI
changes optional, so the users have the possibility to keep favorite settings in look and feel.