Best Browser?

On 29/03/18 09:34, Paul wrote:
WayFarer wrote:
On 29/03/18 08:20, Mayayana wrote:
"WayFarer" wrote

| Iridium Browser

Â* I'm curious what's so good about it.

I don't know to respond to subjectivities.

[quote] I'd like to know which browsers should I try [unquote]

I was responding to an specific request made by the OP.

To sort browsers, there should be some kind of tests. (And
no, I'm not considering "speed tests" to be one of those.
The P.R. material on "browser speed", seeks to deflect
out attention from stuff that matters.)

Of all the tools here, only one had a supercookie test.
And the supercookie is how they show targeted advertising,
like me continuing to see Analog Devices adverts right after
I tried to track down an Analog Devices *sound driver*.

https://www.ghacks.net/2015/12/28/th...resource-list/


This is how you build up a profile on someone, until
the day arrives when they enter some self-identifying
information into the browser.

https://samy.pl/evercookie/

And these are the things we don't want browsers doing,
and they *all* do it - to be standards compliant.

All you're doing is picking the car with the nice paint
job, and soft vinyl seats. The cars aren't different
underneath.

So if you want a browser with a menu bar, pick Firefox.
If you want a browser without a menu bar, pick Chrome.

And pick a "vanity name" for your browser, to suit your "personality".

Now I like Iceweasel for some reason, because it seems
to be in keeping with the nature of browser design.

Â*Â* Paul

Good info, thanks.

Paul wrote:
mechanic wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 19:02:08 -0700, T wrote:

On 03/26/2018 04:31 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 20:36:56 -0000 (UTC), Dominique wrote:

I'd like to know which browsers should I try.
Edge.

Dude! You are stirring the pot!

Yes, I thought about that and decided it was important to help raise
awareness of some underused browsers (eg Qupzilla now Falkon) and as
we're on a Windows group remind people of the MSFT favourite
emerging (Edge). Still I should have realised that the win7 group is
populated by people living in the past :-).

This group is filled with people of erudition and refinement,
who are "looking for the right product". And the "data mining"
of Windows 10, isn't what they're looking for.

They want the convenience of using their legacy software
collection, the software collection that makes them "productive".
But, without the data mining a new OS would have to carry out.

Look at the purchases Microsoft has made.

Tried to buy Yahoo (for the 1 billion email addresses).

Bought Skype, to try to build a social network out of it.
(You only think it's a phone network.)

Bought LinkedIn, as a means of assembling an "upper crust
mailing list".

Microsoft has decided, even if they don't know what they're doing,
that they need a mining operation "like all the cool kids".

And Windows 10 is their data mine.

And somehow, Microsoft thinks they can fool people into
thinking they're "nice guys". They think you can "buy a reality
distortion field"
at Home Depot, and just bolt it to the front facade of their
business.

But the truth of the matter is, "elephants have long memories".

Microsoft can buy all the burned ash heaps it wants, and it's
not going to buy them any friends.

MSEdge isn't a "new browser". It's an integrated part of
a mining engine. The entire desktop is a browser window
made out of HTML and JS, and the "stuff" sitting on the
desktop, is viewing ports for you to enter your personal
data and track-able ideas.

A real browser has an "about:blank" that actually sticks.

_Of all the browsers, Seamonkey is the only one that comes __
__closest to "not being ruined". _

Paul

Here! Here!!! ITA with your message, especially the last comment.
bj

"WayFarer" wrote

| | Iridium Browser
|
| I'm curious what's so good about it.
|
| I don't know to respond to subjectivities.
|

What's so complicated? You recommended
Iridium. I looked into it and didn't like what I saw.
So I'm wondering why you recommended it. You
can define your opinion as objective or not.
That's fine with me. They're both your subjective
and my nominally objective, neither of which is
here nor there.

In message , Wolf K
writes:
On 2018-03-27 19:19, Big Al wrote:
[]
I view products that 5 friends of mine think are fabulous and want me
to look at and/or comment on.** SO now I get targeted ads just for
looking. *It's hell ain't it.

That wasn't your friends sending the post, it was a bot.

The only certain way to contact your friends is the phone or snail
mail. I like snail mail.
[]
I would too, except that - in UK at least - it is now a significant
cost, compared to electronic: the cheapest second-class stamp (see
https://www.royalmail.com/personal/uk-delivery/stamps/) is 58p (small,
"from" 79p large; first class 67p and "from" 1.01 large).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

No sense being pessimistic. It wouldn't work anyway.
- Penny Mayes, UMRA, 2014-August

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 09:26:13 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-03-27 19:32, Mark Lloyd wrote:
[]
Firefox isn't a perfect browser, but it seems to be the least bad of them.



"The least bad" is what all design is about.

That's life.



My view is somewhat different. We all have different likes and
dislikes and do what we do in different ways. So a browser (or any
other kind of software) that I might call perfect is one that you
might find terrible, or vice-versa).

So the manufacturer of a browser (or any other kind of software)
either designs it for what it thinks the majority wants, or else
designs it as a compromise between the many different views of what is
perfect. The result is that nothing is perfect for everyone.
[]
You also have to take into account, for free software (are there any
non-free browsers left? I've been at this long enough to remember when
Netscape [now Firefox] wasn't free; the last one I remember being not
free was Opera, but I think that now is), that the "majority" whose
wants are considered is the majority of _sponsors_, rather than _users_.
(The users' desires are taken into account only to the extent that
they're considered when market share drops _significantly_.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

No sense being pessimistic. It wouldn't work anyway.
- Penny Mayes, UMRA, 2014-August

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| You also have to take into account, for free software that the "majority"
whose
| wants are considered is the majority of _sponsors_, rather than _users_.

Firefox is open source. It's allegedly a non-profit.
Some others are as well. Unfortunately, they made
a deal with the devil in accepting hundreds of
millions of dollare per year from Google in exchange
for giving them the search bar.

I don't know anything as an insider, but it looks
to me like there's still a lot of idealism at Mozilla,
and they don't exactly have sponsors. They've just
got hooked on a *very* big income and are forgetting
their roots.

Another factor is that they're in an awkward spot.
Along the lines of what Ken is saying, they could
decide not to remove settings, not to enable geo-tracking,
etc. They could make various changes to provide more
options and easier configuration. But simple shopping
apps is the way the market is going. Most people prefer
Google crap because it works well, it's simple, and it's
easy to use across devices.

On the other hand, there's nothing stopping Mozilla
from issuing 3 or 4 flavors, aimed at various people.
It's not as though they have to feed money to
stockholders.

A friend just sent me what she thought was an
ominous article yesterday, about how creepy Facebook
and Google are. She sent it from her gmail account,
on her iPhone.
She's probably using Chrome because Google somehow
shoehorned it onto her devices when she wasn't looking.
I don't know. But she probably doesn't know either.

On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 07:22:50 +0700, WayFarer
wrote:

On 29/03/18 00:00, Ken Blake wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 11:22:16 +0700, WayFarer
wrote:

On 26/03/18 03:36, Dominique wrote:
Since a few weeks now It looks like my Firefox install is possessed by the
devil. In Facebook, it ramdomly refreshes when I barely touch the mouse,
but I don't really want a solution.

I'd like to know which browsers should I try.

Iridium Browser


As I said moments ago in another post in this thread, we are all
different.

The suggestion was directed to the OP

Iridium is another browser I don't like.

Subjective comment i.e. it's made up entirely within your own mind.


Exactly right. As I pointed out, we are all different and like
different things.

In message , Mayayana
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| You also have to take into account, for free software that the "majority"
whose
| wants are considered is the majority of _sponsors_, rather than _users_.

Firefox is open source. It's allegedly a non-profit.
Some others are as well.

In theory, yes. Unfortunately, for something this big, there are very
few of us with the time, inclination, skills, tools (compilers), and
machines (I understand it needs quite a big machine to compile it) to
actually work on it; I know you are a lot more still into software
creation than I am (since I've used some of your utilities!), but even
you I suspect wouldn't get into working on a browser. (A thankless task
at best, too, since users are unforgiving! [Including me at times, I'm
sure!])

Unfortunately, they made
a deal with the devil in accepting hundreds of
millions of dollare per year from Google in exchange
for giving them the search bar.

I don't know anything as an insider, but it looks
to me like there's still a lot of idealism at Mozilla,
and they don't exactly have sponsors. They've just
got hooked on a *very* big income and are forgetting
their roots.

Similar _practical_ result, unfortunately. I'm glad you've seen signs of
idealism there; I haven't, really, for some while, to the extent that I
now rarely post in their newsgroup.

Another factor is that they're in an awkward spot.
Along the lines of what Ken is saying, they could
decide not to remove settings, not to enable geo-tracking,
etc. They could make various changes to provide more
options and easier configuration. But simple shopping
apps is the way the market is going. Most people prefer
Google crap because it works well, it's simple, and it's
easy to use across devices.

I wouldn't mind the Google search bar, and all the rest, being there -
even as the default (as you say, that's what _most_ users _do_ want, and
for that purpose it _does_ work well); it's just the increasing
obscurity, and eventual removal of, the ability to remove/change certain
settings (third-party cookies being the most obvious example).

On the other hand, there's nothing stopping Mozilla
from issuing 3 or 4 flavors, aimed at various people.
It's not as though they have to feed money to
stockholders.

Hmm. Is there? Like yourself not being an insider, I can't know, but I
have a strong _feeling_ that the Google (etc.) sponsorship might be
conditional on _not_ doing that.

A friend just sent me what she thought was an
ominous article yesterday, about how creepy Facebook
and Google are. She sent it from her gmail account,
on her iPhone.

(-: [Did you point the irony out to her?]

She's probably using Chrome because Google somehow
shoehorned it onto her devices when she wasn't looking.
I don't know. But she probably doesn't know either.


--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

As individuals, politicians are usually quite charming, so it is quite hard to
dislike them, but in most cases, it is worth making the effort.
- Mark Williams (UMRA), 2013-4-26

chicagofan wrote:
Paul wrote:
mechanic wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 19:02:08 -0700, T wrote:

On 03/26/2018 04:31 AM, mechanic wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 20:36:56 -0000 (UTC), Dominique wrote:

I'd like to know which browsers should I try.
Edge.

Dude! You are stirring the pot!

Yes, I thought about that and decided it was important to help raise
awareness of some underused browsers (eg Qupzilla now Falkon) and as
we're on a Windows group remind people of the MSFT favourite
emerging (Edge). Still I should have realised that the win7 group is
populated by people living in the past :-).

This group is filled with people of erudition and refinement,
who are "looking for the right product". And the "data mining"
of Windows 10, isn't what they're looking for.

They want the convenience of using their legacy software
collection, the software collection that makes them "productive".
But, without the data mining a new OS would have to carry out.

Look at the purchases Microsoft has made.

Tried to buy Yahoo (for the 1 billion email addresses).

Bought Skype, to try to build a social network out of it.
(You only think it's a phone network.)

Bought LinkedIn, as a means of assembling an "upper crust
mailing list".

Microsoft has decided, even if they don't know what they're doing,
that they need a mining operation "like all the cool kids".

And Windows 10 is their data mine.

And somehow, Microsoft thinks they can fool people into
thinking they're "nice guys". They think you can "buy a reality
distortion field"
at Home Depot, and just bolt it to the front facade of their
business.

But the truth of the matter is, "elephants have long memories".

Microsoft can buy all the burned ash heaps it wants, and it's
not going to buy them any friends.

MSEdge isn't a "new browser". It's an integrated part of
a mining engine. The entire desktop is a browser window
made out of HTML and JS, and the "stuff" sitting on the
desktop, is viewing ports for you to enter your personal
data and track-able ideas.

A real browser has an "about:blank" that actually sticks.

_Of all the browsers, Seamonkey is the only one that comes __
__closest to "not being ruined". _

Paul

Here! Here!!! ITA with your message, especially the last comment.
bj

LOL!!! I got so excited over someone complimenting SeaMonkey ... I
wrote "here" instead of "hear" in my exclamation. :-[

Excuse please ...
bj

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Mayayana
writes:
"Paul" wrote

| Of all the browsers, Seamonkey is the only one that comes
| closest to "not being ruined".

Could you explain that? I've used FF and Pale Moon
for years. I've only barely looked at Seamonkey. I'd
assumed it was just FF with email.

So had I. (Not a bad idea; I used to use - at work - Netscape, for
both news and email; it worked well. Until corporate made it all only
work with variations of Outlook, and eventually killed news access
altogether.)

I don't know the details of the changeover, but when I lost Netscape, I
got SeaMonkey which I thought was it's replacement, and my [combination]
browser is not like Firefox to me. I downloaded Firefox separately, but
didn't like the constant changes. I just keep an outdated copy for a
backup. I don't know what Mozilla group or programmers are keeping SM
alive, but I hope they don't stop.
bj

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 09:54:06 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

So the manufacturer of a browser (or any other kind of software)
either designs it for what it thinks the majority wants, or else
designs it as a compromise between the many different views of
what is perfect. The result is that nothing is perfect for
everyone.

My oh my, Steve Jobs where are you now that we need you?

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| A friend just sent me what she thought was an
| ominous article yesterday, about how creepy Facebook
| and Google are. She sent it from her gmail account,
| on her iPhone.
|
| (-: [Did you point the irony out to her?]
|

Yes, jokingly. Like most people (including the
article author) she regards the news about Google
as a kind of gossip, without recognizing that she
doesn't have to allow it.
Whatayagonnado, right? They got ya comin' and
goin'.....