I prefer Librewolf as it is easier and simpler to use

  • Freuks@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Whats the benefits of security and privacy using Firefox with Arkenfox rather than WaterFox, LibreWolf, Mullvad ?

    • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      There’s no benefit to ANY of these. You can do what all of them do yourself with stock Firefox and set it up however you like, and you’ll be the first to get updates and security patches.

  • brb@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Can’t recommend this. It broke couple sites that I frequently use when I tried it some time ago

      • brb@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I really doubt they would care about something like this. Even getting them to support firefox was an annoying process. I emailed them every month for six months until they added firefox support

    • ivn@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      This is expected if you keep the default settings. You shouldn’t use it as it is but read the wiki and configure it to find the balance you want between privacy and usablity.

        • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Safari is your only option as all iOS browsers are Safari. Also there are not as many apps as Apples ecosystem is locked and requires a lot of money to develop for. Add that to the fact that it is closed source and you have a anti freedom device. Apple also is bad about data collection despite there claims.

          • plumpfella@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            I want to switch off but I can’t see Android being much better as it is literally developed by an advertising company. You could root and go with an open source fork but how many phones out there still let you do that outside of the lower end

            • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              Google Pixel phones are, ironically, the best supported by de-googling projects like CalyxOS, GrapheneOS and /e/os. They are quite cheap to buy too (especially second hand).

            • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              Just get the fossdroid setup. I’m talking about F-droid plus Lineage OS. You also could go with something privacy focused such as Calyx OS or Graphene but I personally don’t care for those. Lineage OS is simple and combined with F-droid you have all the apps you likely need.

              • plumpfella@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                If I want to root though and still want a decently high end phone aren’t I just stuck with a pixel?

                • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  You don’t want root as that breaks Android completely. It isn’t designed in a way that root is necessarily and it breaks the isolation.

                  What you probably want is a device supported by Lineage OS.

                  https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/

                  There are also third party device finders but use those at your own risk. Additionally you can also port a new device to Lineage OS if you are knowledgeable and motivated. Most phone manufacturers allow boot loader unlocks but a few don’t so be mindful.

  • slug@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I know this is somewhat defeating of the privacy purpose but I use FF because of sync- is there an alternative that can use something like webdav to sync my bookmarks/history/etc between instances? e; i know floccus is around for bookmarks but i find history useful too

    • Peffse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I feel like there are far too many IceAnimal forks that just vanish the month after they put out a release.

      It might not be entirely true, but it just feels like that.

      • refalo@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        maintaining a full blown FOSS project and community, especially a browser, is a lot of work. most people likely give up pretty fast

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      LibreJS is a bad project and it is never going to work. Free software is very important to computing and the web but I wish the FSF would stop shoveling broken junk. What’s worse is that if you dare to disagree with the FSF cult they see you as the enemy

      • The Cuuuuube@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        “Richard Stallman is a sexist and a transphobe”

        “You’re a corporate shill!”

        Like I couldn’t have possibly reached that conclusion based on the things that he says or the way the be acts…

        • ahal@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          It’s a template to help set all the security and privacy hardening features that Firefox already ships with but are disabled by default.

        • Lemongrab@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          It is a script that automatically changes the internal flags of Firefox (accessed manually through “about:config”) but isn’t a recompile. A fork that uses most of the Arkenfox config is Librewolf.

            • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              My understanding is that this Arkenfox thing is a script that changes the config of your existing Firefox install. A fork would be a version of Firefox you can download that has those changes applied by default upon download.

            • Lemongrab@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              Arkenfox quite literally is not a fork. It is just changing settings. That is like saying I am making a Firefox fork by changing it to dark theme and changing the default search engine to Bing.

              Arkenfox isn’t a fork, even with a script it is manual for much of it. A fork requires redistributing the code, which for Firefox requires the Dev to change the name and replace icons of the application (to comply with Firefox’s license), which requires modifying the source code and compiling.

              • delirious_owl@discuss.online
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                Taking the latest release and then running a script to patch it with some modifications is the definition of a fork.

                By your logic, Tor Browser isn’t a fork of Firefox.

                • tetris11@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Tor makes changes to the FF source though for it to run, no?

                  Arkenfox merely makes config changes in FF

                • Wilmo Bones@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Its not modifying the code, it’s changing existing settings that are already available to be changed to optimal settings for privacy…

                  It is not a fork you are completely wrong.

    • ssm@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Every fork creates fragmentation. Then you get forks of forks. Then you get forks of forks of forks. Eventually, you get a knife, and a spoon, and a spork, maybe even a fpoon. And every fork splits your developer pool in half! And once you’re down to one developer each, the developer splits in half! And then you have no project.

      • laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Nice FUD.

        By your own logic, Chrome should have fewer developers than Konqueror, since its engine is essentially a fork of a fork of a fork.

            • ssm@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Only a handful of forks will actually be used.

              Tell that to Linux lol

              or userspace audio daemons

              or package managers

              or FHS

              or Linux userspace network stacks

              or Linux firewalls

              or init systems & rc managers

              or window managers / desktop environments

              or graphics toolkits

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        that’s not how things work. open source projects don’t start with a set amount of developers and start splitting. even if they do, they don’t split in equal parts. if you have 500 developers working on a project, and 10 of them create 8 different forks, that doesn’t really change much.

        some developers may move around, and more developers can join the pool all the time, on any fork. i don’t understand how any of this is a problem.

  • Imprint9816@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Its better to just go through the settings yourself then rely on arkenfox. This just adds a middleman into the process of keeping your settings updated.

    • Shredder1750@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Have you seen the user.js, you have to change a lot of settings and you cannot keep up to date with them, secondly Arkenfox prefers you to go over their user.js by your self and their updater script has the -c flag to show you the difference between current user.js and new user.js

      Overall it would be very difficult to manage something like this on our own as most things are not visible on the settings page of Firefox

    • MrOtherGuy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      In addition, if you use user.js then you essentially cannot change those settings at runtime (via about:config or otherwise), because your user.js will override the settings on next startup. Maybe that’s desired for some, but good to keep in mind nonetheless.

      • Lemongrab@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        That is not how Arkenfox works. You apply the patch using the script, and then re-run this patch everytime Arkenfox receives an update. In between running, you can change settings in about:config and settings, but it will be overwritten if a different value is included in the user.js. A more permanent solution is using the user-overrides.js file required by the script before patching to create a persistent config.

        Something like: user_prefs(“privacy.resistFingerprinting.letterboxing” , “false”);

        More details about user overrides can be found here.

        • MrOtherGuy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          What I’m trying to point out here, is that prefs declared in user.js (whether they are put there using scripting or otherwise) cannot be persistently modified at runtime from within Firefox. That may or may not be a huge problem, but something to be aware of.

          • Lemongrab@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Yes, I understand. I am pretty sure that is incorrect. With an Arkenfox profile, I have modified my prefs in about:config and retained those changes persistently.

        • MrOtherGuy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          I don’t think that could work. Not unless we are talking about different things, or unless you run their updater script everytime before starting Firefox.

          • Shredder1750@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            If you use user-overrides.js, it adds your custom preferences at the bottom of the user.js, as the prefs are read from top to bottom, if a new duplicate exist in your user-overrides.js but with a different value the new value would be used as it is at the bottom.

            • MrOtherGuy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              Yes, but that is not what I’m talking about. What I mean is that when Firefox is running and you go to change some setting in say, Settings page, then the new value for that preference is stored into prefs.js (at latest on Firefox shutdown, it might remain only in-memory for some time I’m not sure). Anyway, the new value persists only for that browser session, because on next startup whatever value was set by user.js will override it.

              • laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                Have you independently confirmed this?

                What is preventing user.js from doing exactly what you’re describing right now on your system?

                • MrOtherGuy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Sure. For simplified example have only the following in your user.js file:

                  user_pref("browser.tabs.warnOnClose",true);
                  
                  1. Start Firefox
                  2. Observe that the pref is indeed true
                  3. Go to Setting > General, observe that Confirm before closing multiple tabs is checked
                  4. Uncheck the option
                  5. In about:config observe that browser.tabs.warnOnClose is now false
                  6. Restart Firefox
                  7. Observe that the pref is again set to true

                  The reason is also very simple. Firefox will never write anything to user.js - thus any changes you do at runtime will only be stored to prefs.js. However, user.js always overrides prefs.js at startup.