What is interesting in respect of Q4OS is it sets ths default browser to Chromium. When I installed it months ago, I removed chromium and swapped for firefox. I think I will go back to chromium as I am having no joy getting ungoogled-chromium to work. Apparently the flatpak version works just fine but that would nake me breach my secondary boycott of refusing to use flatpak.
2 Likes
Since I'm now going through a lot of browsers (haven't been "shopping" in a while) I suppose I'll add Ungoogled Chromium to the list; it's been a while since I last tested it.
But first I'd like to revisit some of the smaller Firefox forks like Pale Moon and Waterfox. I was using Zen for a little while last night but I think I'll wait for an stable release.
Vivaldi is holding up nicely so far, by the way.
1 Like
I got today the Firefox Update to Version 136 and at the Moment I surprisingly like the new vertical Tab Bar.
1 Like
Is that what they are using to capture data? 
2 Likes
I just took a quick look at the update notes and wow. A surprisingly long list of changes that seem quite good. This is surprising mostly because every time I looked there in the last year, it was usually security fixes only, very slow progress on restoring the traditional tabs view for android they removed some years ago, or something very minor. I may have skipped the update notes for a version or two, so I may or may not be missing something, but as a general rule this is surprising.
What I suspect is that they had the feeling that their new terms of use would have some backslash, so they decided to update them around a week before a big update to try to make the update distract us from the horrible terms of use. I don't think those who got angry at mozilla will forgive them with anything that isn't reverting the terms of service to how they were before, but that move was quite smart anyway, because people who aren't that much up to these news (non-technical people and people who are slowly moving away from chrome due to the manifest v2 and ad blockers situation) will, in the case of trying to search up the most recent information about firefox, get news websites talking about the big update instead of the other.
Unrelated to this, but I switched from wayland to xorg to see if a problem I was having goes away and noticed that chromium keeps the pixel-accurate touchpad scrolling on xorg too, while on firefox it's only available on wayland last time I tried (on xorg it behaves like pressing the arrow down key sometimes instead, which is a bit annoying to use on a laptop). Does anyone know if any firefox fork (preferably one that disables what makes the new terms of use work) have implemented the pixel-accurate scrolling on xorg? Ungoogled Chromium works fine for me, but i'd still rather not get that close to Google. Maybe an... unmozillad firefox?
2 Likes
I've been getting used to Zen since installing on both my machines at the weekend. I really like the pinned icon quicklinks (or whatever they're called) to frequently used sites, but that tabs can unload from memory.
The vertical tabs takes some getting used to. I haven't noticed any glitches while browsing, but there are some things that aren't implemented yet.
Before settling I will probably also give Floorp a go.
2 Likes
Well, this Thing with the Terms of Use were really bad Communication from Mozilla - not the first Time. You should think that they would learn how to communicate that, but it seems they do not.
I mean, the Change in the Terms of Use weren't made because they want sell Data. That was not the Intention. And it doesn't have to do something with Mozilla's own AI Project. I read in an Article that it was an Adjustment because of the Definition ''Sell Data'' which seems to not very unified defined worldwide. So, they changed this. But the Words were not chosen good enough - obviously when You think about the Reactions. So, the Impression was that Mozilla wants to grab and sell User Data.
And then they saw that this leads to ... very upset People (which would be totally understandable when it would be intened to grab and sell User Data) and they changed the Description to make it clearer. When they would have defined it better at the Beginning, we wouldn't talk about that. But Mozilla's Way to communicate Stuff wasn't the best in the Past, too. The by default enabled Ad-Thing is a good Example for it.
1 Like
Trying once more to get ungoogled-chromium installed. This time in Brave A.I. search engine I asked specifically how to install it on Debian bookworm. The first part goes on about flatpak which I didn't want. This is the bit I am currently running in console, the alternative method:
Alternatively, you can build the package from source by following the instructions provided in the ungoogled-chromium-debian repository1 :
Install initial packages:
sudo apt install -y devscripts equivs
Clone the repository:
git clone https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium-debian.git
cd ungoogled-chromium-debian
Initiate submodules:
git submodule update --init --recursive
Prepare the local source:
debian/rules setup
Install missing packages:
sudo mk-build-deps -i debian/control rm ungoogled-chromium-build-deps_*
Build the package:
dpkg-buildpackage -b -uc
Note that if you have previously added the repository, you may encounter errors about expired keys. Instructions for handling expired OBS repository keys are available in the repository.1
Ungoogled Chromium is a suitable alternative for users who prefer a Chromium-based browser without Google's integrated services and features.
and it failed on the last hurdle! I think because it hasn't been updated for bookworm or those distros based on bookworm!
1 Like
4 Likes
Hi, @Ponce-De-Leon, I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts, as always, but I'm afraid you've missed the point this time, my friend.
There is no miscommunication or misunderstanding, and it's not just about the "collecting and selling data" bit. No, it's the whole thing. The whole "license thing"! There's no excuse for a company like Mozilla to "mis-communicate" legal terms.
@Sorro made a great point by mentioning how clever Mozilla was being by making such sweeping and unpopular changes, just before releasing a significant update, which look stunning compared to so many previous ones. The UK government always releases unpopular new laws, or news, right before a public holiday, or before a big football match like the UAFA Cup, or similar. It's common practice. "Sheeple" are easily distracted.
This move from the new board is both cynical and deliberate. Calculated. Until they completely rewrite their ToS, so there is no ambiguity, and I'm happy to accept, I'll stay as far away from FF as I would the plague. Zen does what I need it to very well, but I can understand others have more demanding uses. They're making great headway, very quickly... keep an eye on them.
1 Like
I've only just seen this - reading now - thanks for sharing! I'll be interested to see how all this unfolds. Right now, I'm not going back... I'll wait.
1 Like
I agree with this statement. We can all miscommunicate in casual conversation; but legalese is a field in and of itself.
I did post a link just above your reply, @0Picass0 which covers changes to the Privacy Policy for Mozilla FF.
But here is a thought to tie both thoughts above together:
If an end user is left in any doubt; their best course of action is to eschew a product rather than to assume trustworthiness.
The End User can hardly be blamed for erring on the side of caution.
Many companies will violate trust and agreements (Canonical) then begrudgingly revert a change (or in Gnomes case, partially revert) then expect full unconditional forgiveness and love.
Where companies are concerned: If you break my trust once, you will do it again and again. They think not in terms of right or wrong, but in whether or not they get caught.
4 Likes
Yes, it is the whole Licensing Thing because of the Change of the Technology Landscape. And I agree to Your last Sentence. That should not happen. But it happened.
I mean, someone wrote that. Then other's looked at it and gave an ''Okay'' to publish it. And it seems that no one from the ''Okay''-People had the Thoughts that this Way to describe it wouldn't be good and that it should be changed in a more clear Way.
And now ... they have the Result. And what they had to do? They changed it again in a more clear Way. It is good that they did it but they should have done it directly right. This whole Discussion now wouldn't then be neccessary when they would have done it better.
2 Likes
That actually could make sense. Unironically, it proofs that backlash from the user base is a good motivator for them to get stuff done.
They certainly do:
Generally speaking, I think it's good that any organization identifies that they've made a communication mistake and try to address it. In that, I think Mozilla is doing the right thing.
But it still raises questions... did they also "forget" to mention this will eventually apply to other Mozilla products, like their VPN? Are any of these products, which can be embedded into the browser, included in these terms?
Their latest blog post clarifying this whole situation goes over some of the reasons why this is necessary, according to them. One of the reasons is apparently that the word "sale" has different meanings in different jurisdictions, and they proceed to give the definition of the CCPA:
As an example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines “sale” as the “selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring, or otherwise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other means, a consumer’s personal information by [a] business to another business or a third party” in exchange for “monetary” or “other valuable consideration.”
This definition looks pretty reasonable to me; basically an exchange of goods or services. So, they had to change their terms of use because they are exchanging user data for, presumably, money.
Over the past few years they've announced repeatedly that they want in the data broker market. Of course, all very private and anonymous, however this doesn't put my mind at ease:
What's more troubling is that while this can all be disabled, it's not all as easy to do. For some things, you need to dive into the about:config page and start tweaking settings manually. Some settings even change after an update, or are quietly introduced, so people won't notice them...
3 Likes
The new wording seems more specific and referring to how the browser actually works instead of something like training AI or similar. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, but that doesn't mean I'm installing their web browser any time soon again.
As for removing the part where they say they don't sell user data and try to excuse it saying that it can mean many things... well, if this part of the new terms of use also meant many things and they had the ability to change it to something more specific, what stopped them from doing the same to the other? Why removing it entirely and excusing it as being a very vague definition instead of rewriting to be more specific?
If I go back to firefox (which I probably will, given that the other option is google...), it will be in the form of a fork that claims to disable everything related to Mozilla. Official firefox is as dead to me as official google chrome is.
2 Likes
that is right. Unfortunately it isn't the first Time that happens. the last one was this default enabled Ad-Model Thing. It was simply there without Explanation - the Explanation came after the People saw that and complaining. Then they describet their Privacy-friendly Ad-Model Thing and what it makes. It is the same here. After implementing is too late.
Then You should think that they have learned it because of that but no ... and now we here and speak about it.
3 Likes
I've read all the responses above, and followed most of the links posted. I'll revisit everything during the weekend, but I have to say, I still think that Mozilla was being underhanded and cynical. I don't believe the "oh, it's all a misunderstanding", or that "selling" has different meanings in different places - you pass something to someone else who then passes something to you which makes you richer in some way. The day I get a contract from a company that says they'd like to pay ME for MY data, we can sit down for a chat.
Just going to watch Zenzen's recommended video while my dinner is cooking.
I'll be back tomorrow.
2 Likes
Exactly... I don't want an automatic transmission. I want to drive my car with a manual 5 speed. What is so hard to understand about that?
5 Likes
In light of this controversy, we've taken some time to revisit the default browser choice in Zorin OS.
Because of Mozilla's policy changes and the new Terms of Use for Firefox, we no longer feel assured that Firefox aligns with our commitment to privacy. As a result, we're open to changing the default browser in Zorin OS 17.3 onward if this issue isn't sufficiently addressed.
When looking for an alternative, we have the following requirements for a new potential default web browser:
- A general-purpose, full-featured browser that supports the most common use cases (including streaming DRM content like Netflix and Prime Video)
- Free and Open Source Software
- Privacy-respecting
- Popular and recognisable
- Mature and well-maintained (important for the quick availability of patches for any security vulnerabilities)
Based on our research, we've narrowed the choices down to one browser by process of elimination. The only browser that appears to satisfy all of these requirements is Brave.
Brave already has an APT repository that hosts the browser package for Linux users. That means we could theoretically switch the default browser to Brave at a moment's notice with our existing ISO build system and upgrade infrastructure, just in time for the launch of Zorin OS 17.3 later this month.
Nevertheless, I believe it's still fair to give Firefox one last chance if they're willing to reconsider their policy changes. As such, I've emailed a contact in Mozilla to ask if they would be willing to make their new Terms of Use optional – only if the user opts into using their new AI features, which seem to require this policy.
If I don't get a sufficiently reassuring response from Mozilla by the end of next week, the plan (at least for now) would be to switch to Brave by default for new installations of Zorin OS 17.3 onward.
If you have any thoughts or other suggestions for the default browser, your comments would be greatly appreciated.
14 Likes
Okay, an interesting Move. Could I make a Suggestion on that? I don't know if it is possible to the Zorin 17.3 Release but maybe You could offer during the Installation or as a Post-Installation Step the Choice of a Browser. And there You could offer Brave or Firefox.
I personally have Brave as a Backup for testing when a Website doesn't run properly and I want test if it runs with a Chromium-based Browser better. But to be honest because of this whole Crypto and Ad Model Stuff built-in I'm not a big Fan of Brave. But under the Chromium-based Browers it is for me more or less the best Choice.
You could theoretically offer LibreWolf, too. They have a Repo what You can add. But the Implementation of the Repo is a bit different than normally. Here explained (See ''Debian Main Repository''):
5 Likes