alt @ alt @lemmy.ml

Posts

1

Comments

145

Joined

2 yr. ago

Oh lol :P , thanks for answering my curiosity. Isn't that like annoying to deal with for yourself as well 😅?

Brave is ultimately an advertising company, they base their business model in ads. And everyone knows how bad that can turn.

Seems more like FUD, but sure.

Ungoogled Chromium on the other hand takes patches from brave and other Chromium based browsers

In the past it was simply dismissed due to reasons mentioned here. I don't have any qualms against Ungoogled Chromium, so I'm not opposed to using it if the stated reasons have been cleared since. But I've never got any confirmation on that.

It's in privsec.dev's recommendations, so it's safe to assume it's at least a decent choice for privacy. I'd argue it's best for 'normies' together with Fedora.

One of its unique qualities would be the excellent support for Btrfs+Snapper out of the box and the fact that it's the only distro I'm aware of that has configs for both AppArmor and SELinux. Furthermore, its stable rolling release model is perhaps its killer-feature.

Its primary con is probably how it's not Arch(-based) and thus doesn't have access to the vast supplies of packages found in the AUR. Thankfully, this is easily solvable through Distrobox.

I think I already addressed that point with

If you choose to do so and it has worked out for you wonderfully; that’s awesome, I’ve been there and enjoyed the experience as well. But, I can’t justify it for myself any longer.

If you meant something else, then please feel free to correct me.

Brave homophobic though

Its CEO; yes.

It is the best Chromium based browser, in a sense, unfortunately…

Agreed.

You’d get a Shawarma from a Hamas-run restaurant, right?

Honestly, I would seriously consider it if it was the best Shawarma in town. At least to try it once.

Opera, Vivaldi, ungoogled-chromium, and some others don’t pull the same shit.

Honestly, all of these are inferior based on merits. But thanks anyways!

Wow, great comment! Much appreciated!

Where’s the logic in that? Why not just install to the user’s home directory so that you don’t even need root access in the first place?

Excellent remark! Wow, that by itself already wrote it off for me.

Why is sudo hard-coded? Answer: it’s to prevent people from using doas and other sudo alternatives.

Another home-run! Especially as I've been a staunch user of doas for quite a while now and wouldn't like to give up on that. Thank you so much for informing me on this!

Your third point is also interesting to ponder upon, though it wasn't as impactful to me personally as the previous two were.

I would like to thank you once again for your astoundingly awesome insights on this matter! This comment has definitely contributed the most in me letting go of the thought of using Homebrew entirely (while some others already informed me that GUI-apps (mostly) can't be installed from Homebrew to function on Linux anyways).

You can also use AppImages.

I'm not necessarily opposed to it, as I do use them if they're inaccessible to me otherwise and if it's official and up-to-date. But for security-sensitive apps (like a browser) I would rather not rely on it. Furthermore, it seems it's unofficial anyways.

https://portable-linux-apps.github.io/

This is a cool resource. Thank you!

You already use an arch container that has access to the AUR, which has literally every package, available on linux.

Call me paranoid if you will.

if anything, flatpaks are THE official (universal) packaging format for Linux

I don't deny that, I make good use of a ton of flatpaks on my system. I also believe that it's the best we have. And I would literally switch to Brave as a flatpak if it would satisfy the following:

• Be official and thus maintained by Brave itself.
• Not having to forego its own more powerful sandbox due to (hopefully) current restrictions of Flatpak. Yes, you read that correctly; while flatpaks are arguably the safest way to consume most applications, this doesn't apply to apps that actually have stronger sandboxes which had to be 'slimmed down' when packaged as a flatpak. Thus, currently, for maximum protection, one simply can't rely on flatpaks for their Chromium-based browsers. If you choose to do so and it has worked out for you wonderfully; that's awesome, I've been there and enjoyed the experience as well. But, I can't justify it for myself any longer.

Unfortunate. Thanks for the headsup :D !

What does Brave give you what the other Chromium based browser doesn’t have?

Brave is known to take privacy (and security) more seriously than its contenders. It's therefore unsurprising to find it recommended by Privacy Guides. Some of its unique features related to privacy can be found here.

Maybe you can install add-ons instead?

Excellent extensions like uBlock Origin heavily rely on Manifest v2 in order to do their bidding. Unfortunately, Chromium intends to stop supporting it. Which will inevitably lead to many Chromium-based browsers to follow the lead and stop supporting it as well. At least Brave has confirmed multiple times to support Manifest v2 longer. Furthermore, I'm not aware of any extension that does an equally excellent job at spoofing your fingerprint randomly. Though, I'd love to be corrected on that.

The bad practices of its CEO doesn't inherently write off the software, instead the software's merits should do the talking. Which Chromium-based browser would you recommend based on its merits?

I would love to consume Brave as a nixpkgs, unfortunately it's mostly not up to date; which I simply can't accept.

most packages in traditional package managers are not packaged officially, yet we use them all the time.

While there's definitely truth in this, aren't we already trusting the repos of traditional package manager by choosing to use the associated distro? So, by e.g. choosing to use Debian , you've already (somehow) accepted their packages to be 'thrustworthy'. We already trust the developers of the apps/binaries we use. Therefore, we have two sets of parties we trust by default. I would rather not increase the amount of people I have to trust for software, but I can understand why others might differ on this.

Thanks for the insights! Do you know if these issues continue to persist?

Why and when did it start deciding to upgrade every package I have installed when I try to install a new package?

Is this perhaps related to how for most non-LTS distros (but especially on something like Arch) one is recommended to update all packages before installing a new package in hopes of preventing issues related to dependency hell? I don't know if Homebrew's model of packaging is similar enough to Linux' to make sensible comparisons between the two, but this was just something that came up to me as a thought.

Thank you for your input, it's heart-breaking to hear that it's not able to provide GUI applications (and thus browsers by extension). But I'm glad to hear that it has provided you a decent experience so far!

Based on what I saw on macOS I wouldn’t touch Homebrew with a 10 feet pole. We have proper packaging systems in the Linux world.

Could you please elaborate on how the packaging in the Linux world is better? I can imagine why, but I'd rather have a better-informed idea on the matter. Thanks for your input!

The Chromium snap is supported by Canonical so that’s a great candidate for anything that comes with snap or can use snap. If I couldn’t use snap, I’d use the Chromium flatpak from Flathub.

I use Chromium from my repo already, but as stated in the OP; I would switch in an instance to Brave if I could.

I am tagged, but did you address me as well? If so, my reasons can be found in the OP.

you’re not going to get GUI apps that way though

I should have known better :P. Thanks for the input!

By default it installs itself into /home/homebrew or something

I don't like that either. Thanks for that insight and thanks for sharing the link to change that!