No.34404
What's the most schway browser, excluding the TOR browser? I'm using Chrome but what to move away from it because, you know, data siphoning.
And if TOR browser really is the best I'll stick with it.
No.34405
>>34404
For me it's Palemoon.
Short info: Palemoon is based on Firefox, but still uses the older GUI. The Creator also seems to be concerned about security, as Palemoon disables RC4 by default (which Firefox doesn't).
No.34411
The current state of browsers makes all of them qualify as objectively shit. Chrom* is botnet, Firefox is bloat and retarded development decisions galore, Palemoon is outdated and maintained by a Windowsfag teenager with a retarded nonfree license for its binaries, non-Guix IceCat is dead, Iceweasel is Firefox, Midori lacks SSL support, all other browsers are dead, useless for daily use or proprietary…
Our only hope seems to be Fiber. Hopefully Servo will reach stable within the following decade and then we will have a nice Qt-based, plugin-centric browser that can switch between WebKit and Servo at will.
Also what the fuck /cyber/. Have we fallen so low we are now engaging in browser wars? This better not become a tradition like in /tech/.
No.34412
>>34405
Palemoon is love. Palemoon is life. I'm really enjoying the 64-bit version and the fact that you can port your existing info from Firefox(bookmarks etc)
No.34413
>>34405
>>34411
What is it that makes Pale Moon the better browser, is there anything specific about it or the way it protects your information that makes it superior?
No.34414
>>34413
>is there anything specific about it or the way it protects your information that makes it superior?
If I am not mistaken the only differences are:
>It needs a special snowflake PaleMoon Addons website because it's so fucking old no Firefox plugins work anymore with it
>It's so old all of the recently added bloat (Hello, Pocket, DRM, WebRTC, Social) haven't even been added
Maybe it has some tweaks to the about:config, but other than some security patches merged from newer versions, it is pretty much an old Firefox release.
Just wait for Servo to come out. We may experience a silver era of web browsing by then.
No.34419
>>34414
>>34414
lol at this butthurt
It is actually mantained by a 43+ years old.
>It needs a special snowflake PaleMoon Addons website because it's so fucking old no Firefox plugins work anymore with it
Actually, its the other way around. The rest of the addons work outside those that have versions in the Pale Moon addons website (people actually thinking that a fork having active developers is a disadvantage).
No.34422
Firefox is good and can be made secure. Also another one to watch out for is Vivaldi. It is designed with the power-user in mind, by the old team that used to make Opera, before they started using the chrome engine.
https://vivaldi.com/ - not a full release yet, but it works pretty good for technical preview.
No.34423
>>34422
Proprietary, still in beta and made entirely in JS, which means the UI is as slow as it can get.
Please no.
No.34425
>>34423
Use it Anon then let me knwo of how slow it is. I have been using it for a while and even for a techical preview is pretty fast.
I am not a big fan of JC myself but these guys are doing some pretty solid work!
No.34427
One browser I've used is some weird one called Maxthon. It seems to be it's own thing, but Idk, it's not something I like
No.34430
>>34427
It's a proprietary WebKit/Trident (old IE) fork made by a Chinese company that somehow manages to score the highest in almost all HTML5 compliance tests.
But
>proprietary
>Chinese
>IE
Should tell you all you need to know about it.
No.34454
Firefox is my primary, as it is open, even if ran by idiots. I usually wind up using derivatives such as palemoon or iceweasel. Run noscript (or equivalent) or delete your browser, it's not an option.
Alternatives that suck less (but necessarily work on fewer sites) include:
Midori: webkit browser, works pretty well, but almost as heavy as firefox.
uzbl: another webkit browser, vi keybindings, little bit lighter/simpler.
Netsurf: A browser so light that it is designed to run on embedded systems into the tens of MB of RAM. hardly even supports .js- in my book, a feature, though there are many websites it doesn't work for.
No.34455
No.34683
I'd use Firefox, but Palemoon has x64 and atom-optimized builds, and I use both kinds of computers.
It removes the bloat that FF has (hello, pocket and all that other nonsense as of late) and consumes somewhat less RAM. Any add-on you need you can just grab an older version. I haven't run any tests but it seems somewhat more responsive.
And I love syncing my bookmarks and add-ons through my desktop, laptop and phone.
No.34686
I'm surrently using waterfox, is it /cyber/ approved?
No.34691
i've been enjoying lynx thoroughly, completing captchas is a bitch without gui tho
No.34692
>.34691 i go into firefox, complete the captcha, use editthiscookie to export it to lynx, and then return back to lynx to do whatever i was doing
No.34695
>>34419
I had Pale Moon installed and when I installed stylish, and applied a theme, nothing was accessible. Pale Moon is a nice browser but it has disgusting plugin support.
No.34696
>>34423
>>34425
Vivaldi is fine anon you're just being a little bitch. I'd use it if I could change the red thing to a different colour of my choosing. Like orange or black rather than it changing with every site.
No.34697
>>34696
It's also based on chromium, so that's not that much better either.
No.34698
>>34695
Proof so none of you think I'm bullshitting.
No.34715
No.34716
>>34715
>based on chromium
So it's just a rebranded chromium. Dropped.
No.34786
>>34696
>Vivaldi is fine
lurk moar
can all the assholes stop recommending firefox/chrome/opera forks? we are looking for a GOOD browser.
this means it must have privacy features like those that you get through firefox addons which means links/lynx are probably out of the game too.
No.34798
>>34716
There was a plan for a pretty good anti-tracking browser called zirconium
Problem is shazbots at IBs like to talk but can't code for shit
No.34801
>>34696
I'll admit as far as security goes lynx is fairly minimal. HTTPS support is pretty much as far as it got, it essentially predates the internet itself so that's not surprising. I'd love to see a TOR/Lynx hybrid, I'm struggling to imagine anything more schway. The best you can do with lynx at this point is VPN and Proxy it to pipe it through the TOR network, no .onion access though, and it's a bit leaky even then.
No.34802
>>34801
that said, I know cookies are just the tip of the privacy invasion iceberg, but I do like how it asks you cookie by cookie if you want to accept, reject, never accept, or always accept
No.34803
>>34802 it's not even close to secure, but it is schway af and it has a lot of potential if the right people were willing to make a tinfoil fork
No.34811
>>34786
>can all the assholes stop recommending firefox/chrome/opera forks?
Don't be a fag. All relevant browsers are based in one of those because devs can't be assed to make a new rendering engine.
The only fucking alternative to those are text-based browsers, and needless to say using one of those for day to day stuff is just stupid.
No.34827
>>34786
>"I'm an old-fag" mae-mae
Oh no. I thought summer was over.
>>34801
That sounds schway as fuck tbh. I just want a browser that will let me browse normal sites and .onion sites in the same browser, but still maintaining a TOR-esque aspect. Is there anything like that?
No.34851
No.35124
>>34404
'TOR browser' isn't real. That's just preconfigured firefox. IceCat is gnu's fork of firefox, and it's pretty schway if you use a custom userchrome. So is firefox developer edition, but you can't modify it's default userchrome, but it looks schway by default.
The most schway browser would be dwb, surf, or one of the other browsers in that same style with the vim keybinds and thin UI elements.
No.35125
>>34686
>not on linux
Nope.
No.35126
>>34696
>Can't use punctuation.
>Thinks proprietary browser is anything but garbage.
Get the fuck off this board. There is a special place in halfchan for people like you.
No.35127
>>34827
>I just want a browser that will let me browse normal sites and .onion sites in the same browser
Holy shit, you're next-level retarded. Firefox, dumbass. Tor's default firefox browser does this. Have you ever even used tor? Do you shitpost from IE on your Windows computer? Get fucked.
No.35142
>>34698
I don't really see why you need stylish at all, just go to the theme store on the mozilla site and start trying dark themes out until you find something you like. Also, about:config tabs on top and get the 'hide caption titlebar plus' extension if you want to trim some fat off the browser itself. I can show you my configs if you are interested.
No.35143
You can custom build Chromium, remove anything you want.
No.35150
>>34405
>tfw palemoon doesn't display webms correctly so i'm stuck on firefox 28.0 pre-australis with a shite ton of security flaws
No.35159
Firefox 3.0 - 23.0/Cyberfox are breddy much the goto browsers.
SeaMonkey is also acceptable.
No.35161
>TFW I still use Opera
>TFW I still can't find a decent browser to replace it, despite its minor flaws.
I guess I'll stick with it and use Vivaldi as an alternative
No.35163
There is no way that a browser CANNOT suck.
The html+js hell that most sites support introduces a huge security-privacy attack surface.
It's more feasible to create a carefully coded application for a specific thing. For example a 8chan Browser.
No.35164
>>35150
You sure got a problem there, because Palemoon does display webms correctly in my case.
No.35171
>>35163
Daily reminder that 90% of security flaws are introduced by programmers wanting to code something fast without thinking much about it.
One of the most dangerous security flaws you can find in any program is a buffer overflow, and these are often introduced by limitless strcpy calls. Yeah, avoiding it is as easy as adding the size of the array you are copying to as a parameter in the function call, yet it keeps happening.
In other words, our programs will continue to be vulnerable as long as incompetent programmers do them.
No.35196
>>35171
What if a bunch of chummers here make one?
No.35198
>>35196
>Implying we are competent
>Implying we even have the required manwork to churn out a safe HTML5 engine in a sane amount of time
Just wait until Fiber is released, then contribute to it.
No.35199
>>35163
I'd rather have an application running in a browser sandbox than having a "carefully coded application" that has far more possibilities to do harm than a web app
No.35246
>>34422
screw google, screw opera, screw javascripts.
No.35255
>>35196
Making a browser is very difficult. Simply trying to compile Firefox is hideously difficult, then trying to keep up with the non stop patches…
/g/ tried and ended up designing a logo and nothing else. Sadly like >>35198 said you need a competent team with a lot of time, it's pretty unlikely.
No.35617
>>34698
>themes that refer to firefox directly by name
>why don't they work guys
Just change the name and they'd work, even when only a lazy retard would need Stylish.