Again, Firefox does not do any user surveillance, and Mozilla isn’t inherently dependent on Google the way companies making browsers based on Chromium are. And since making profit is the goal for these companies, there is no mechanism to guarantee they will continue to behave ethically going forward. None of what is proprietary can be trusted in the long term, and it’s a fundamental mistake to rely on proprietary tools.
Not so easy. There is never a guarantee of ethical behavior, regardless of whether we are talking about FOSS or a company. Naturally it cannot be excluded that Vivaldi may one day move into unethical practices, but this, in view of the history of Jon von Tetzchner and his cooperative that is Vivaldi, is highly unlikely. Adding the activism right against these practices in which he is involved.
There are quite a few small software companies that have been in the market for a long time, with proprietary products, more ethical than some others with FOSS products.
A good example a two brothers, which with own money in their spare time (they are working as electricians in their own workshop), have created a page with online tools (office tools, graphics and a lot of others) free to use (they accept donations), without account needed, anonimous (the documents a saved locally in html format) PWA. It’s freeware, the office suite is also downloadable.
With the shortest and best TOS and PP I have ever seen. Apart of this, a fast and friendly user support.
Firefox certainly isn’t the worse and I use it as second browser for occasional use, apart from the French browser UR. But I trust more in browsers from european compañies than of those from US companies, because the privacy laws in the CE are a lot better than those form US, where they even don’t exists or only poorly.
Ethic depends only of the Dev or company of a product, not of the license it has. The ethic of a product youu can se in the conditions of the use and how they treat your data. (read those from Firefox, maybe you’ll have a surprise)
You can’t guarantee ethical behavior, but not having a conflict of interest is a prerequisite for it. Commercial software has an inherent conflict of interest that doesn’t exist in FOSS environment. Companies either have to make profit or they perish, this is not the case for FOSS. Ethics depend on being able to ensure that the incentives of the developers align with the incentives of the users. This is not possible to do with close source software in the long run.
It is not entirely correct, also FOSS devs may have commercial interests, for example when the application, such as a browser or a VPN requires an infrastructure, such as servers.
The lack of commercial interest is only applicable to apps that do not require it, for example system tools or graphical applications.
They can also be self-hosted, but this implies two possibilities, either having your own server or having to trust an external server, with which we are in the same, of commercial interests.
It is more about the question of how this application creates its income, which can be directly such as having to pay for it, using ads, or tracking user activities to sell it to third parties. The former is acceptable, the latter is not.
It is often unavoidable to use proprietary soft on our PC (some professional apps, official administrative apps, games, or in general in apps that do not have a decent FOSS alternative). For this reason, the most important thing to have a verifiable security of the software and this can also be given as in FOSS.
The OpenSource system is not automatically synonymous with security and privacy, the reason for its existence is not this and it is only related to the development and the possibilities of adaptation and sharing. But the interests behind can be the same as in proprietary soft. For this reason it can be dangerous to globalize with FOSS = security and privacy, with this we can get a very bad surprise, especially if the product is neglected, like many.
FrostWire is an OpenSource BitTorrent client and YT downloader…and is Malware
MplayerX, FOSS and Malware, and so on, along others, which are flagged as ad and bundleware.
Privacy? also a lot of apps and APIs from Google, Facebook, Amazon and other big tech companies are FOSS.
To return to the subject, it is not so important who distributes FOSS, be it the Chrome Store, MS Store (same as GitHub now), NASA software or others, but the origin of this software and the intentions of the corresponding devs and especially the community what’s behind. It is always necessary to check it before use.
A browser is a client application that doesn’t require any servers. However, we have plenty of examples of FOSS infrastructure being funded without the need for corporations. If anything, infrastructure costs are constantly and rapidly decreasing.
Lack of commercial interest is applicable in every domain in practice. This is what sets the goals of the developers, this decides what features are developed and why they are developed. In case of commercial software, features are developed to create profit for the business first and foremost, with everything else being secondary. When ethics come into conflict with profit, then profit must win.
Giving examples of malicious open source software is not really a counter point since both closed and open software can be hostile. However, the problem with commercial software is that it has additional conflict of interest that doesn’t exist in open software. Furthermore, open software can always be forked, as often happens, when original developers take it in a direction people don’t like.
Closed software can be useful the same way buying an appliance can be useful, but it’s a fundamental mistake to invest in such software long term as a user. Sooner or later the company making it will either move in a direction you don’t like because that’s where the market is, or it’ll go out of business. When that happens you’re going to be left without useful software.
So, yes it is in fact incredibly important whether a project is FOSS and whether it’s corporate owned. Decisions have to be made on case by case basis, but FOSS is a fundamental requirement.
FOSS is of course fundamental, this I have never doubted, by allowing collaborative creation in a new project, which allows development better than in a company with a few less efficient devs. The main reason for FOSS is precisely this, what many forget and confuse FOSS with security, privacy and a free internet, which is deeply wrong, these concepts are not synonymous with FOSS, they depend on too many other factors.
Because of this the most among of FOSS is used and developed by this big companies, by this way they can use Devs freelance. That is what I mean that Free Soft has nothing to do with Free Internet.
Yes a browser is a client soft, but nevertheless it is perfectly capable of sending user data, as we see in many of them, especially if it is used with synchronization functions to have the data of several devices.
This does not necessarily have to do with whether they are FOSS or not, although the main ones that have these practices coincide with large companies, Chrome, EDGE, Safari, Opera since it belongs to a Chinese company, Brave selectively with its system of not blocking sponsors and Firefox is not completely spared either.
Today I have seen a good example of how much different browsers protect the user on a well-known website, in AutoCAD web app, which is freely accessible with Chrome, Edge and Firefox, while blocking Vivaldi, UR and Dissenter.
Analyzing this page it turned out that it records the inputs of the keyboard, mouse and mouse movements, sending the data to third parties.
Again, I’m not saying that FOSS guarantees things like security and privacy, rather that it’s a prerequisite. The best case scenario is software developed in the open without any commercial involvement. However, software developed by companies in the open is still strictly preferable to closed software. As I’ve already explained, my view is that it would be a worse situation if Chromium became the only engine in town, and that’s the reason Firefox is a very important project. I don’t think Google should be the sole company making a browser engine.
Google is unfortunately the dominant company on the net, but this will not change with using Firefox or another browser with Gecko, with a market presence of less than 2% and also dependent on Google. Even old, outdated IE has more users than Firefox today.
For this reason, I do not believe that the path to a free internet is there.
The only way to achieve freedom on the web is not to prefer one or the other browser or software license, but to end the surveillance practices used by these companies. It is useless to use instead of Chromium, another from a company that also uses these practices, I think.
Who develops a software is not so important then, without the surveillance of the user for commercial interests, then only matters who offers the best products or services.
TOR and the Onion network were developed by the US defense and its secret services.
Google may be the dominant company on the net, but that doesn’t mean alternatives should be abandoned. IE used to be the dominant browser just like Chrome is today, and it was displaced in a couple of decades. Thinking that Chromium is the end of browser technology is incredibly myopic.
The only way to achieve freedom on the web is to ensure that true FOSS solutions survive going forward. Firefox is currently the best hope for the future of browsers. Who develops the software is incredibly important, and that’s a demonstrable fact. Google is driven by commercial interests, and it continues to introduce features like AMP that are hostile towards open web while removing APIs that make ad blockers work.
Again, Firefox does not do any user surveillance, and Mozilla isn’t inherently dependent on Google the way companies making browsers based on Chromium are. And since making profit is the goal for these companies, there is no mechanism to guarantee they will continue to behave ethically going forward. None of what is proprietary can be trusted in the long term, and it’s a fundamental mistake to rely on proprietary tools.
Not so easy. There is never a guarantee of ethical behavior, regardless of whether we are talking about FOSS or a company. Naturally it cannot be excluded that Vivaldi may one day move into unethical practices, but this, in view of the history of Jon von Tetzchner and his cooperative that is Vivaldi, is highly unlikely. Adding the activism right against these practices in which he is involved. There are quite a few small software companies that have been in the market for a long time, with proprietary products, more ethical than some others with FOSS products. A good example a two brothers, which with own money in their spare time (they are working as electricians in their own workshop), have created a page with online tools (office tools, graphics and a lot of others) free to use (they accept donations), without account needed, anonimous (the documents a saved locally in html format) PWA. It’s freeware, the office suite is also downloadable. With the shortest and best TOS and PP I have ever seen. Apart of this, a fast and friendly user support. Firefox certainly isn’t the worse and I use it as second browser for occasional use, apart from the French browser UR. But I trust more in browsers from european compañies than of those from US companies, because the privacy laws in the CE are a lot better than those form US, where they even don’t exists or only poorly. Ethic depends only of the Dev or company of a product, not of the license it has. The ethic of a product youu can se in the conditions of the use and how they treat your data. (read those from Firefox, maybe you’ll have a surprise)
You can’t guarantee ethical behavior, but not having a conflict of interest is a prerequisite for it. Commercial software has an inherent conflict of interest that doesn’t exist in FOSS environment. Companies either have to make profit or they perish, this is not the case for FOSS. Ethics depend on being able to ensure that the incentives of the developers align with the incentives of the users. This is not possible to do with close source software in the long run.
It is not entirely correct, also FOSS devs may have commercial interests, for example when the application, such as a browser or a VPN requires an infrastructure, such as servers.
The lack of commercial interest is only applicable to apps that do not require it, for example system tools or graphical applications. They can also be self-hosted, but this implies two possibilities, either having your own server or having to trust an external server, with which we are in the same, of commercial interests.
It is more about the question of how this application creates its income, which can be directly such as having to pay for it, using ads, or tracking user activities to sell it to third parties. The former is acceptable, the latter is not.
It is often unavoidable to use proprietary soft on our PC (some professional apps, official administrative apps, games, or in general in apps that do not have a decent FOSS alternative). For this reason, the most important thing to have a verifiable security of the software and this can also be given as in FOSS.
The OpenSource system is not automatically synonymous with security and privacy, the reason for its existence is not this and it is only related to the development and the possibilities of adaptation and sharing. But the interests behind can be the same as in proprietary soft. For this reason it can be dangerous to globalize with FOSS = security and privacy, with this we can get a very bad surprise, especially if the product is neglected, like many.
FrostWire is an OpenSource BitTorrent client and YT downloader…and is Malware
CheatEngine, also OpenSource and also Malware
MplayerX, FOSS and Malware, and so on, along others, which are flagged as ad and bundleware. Privacy? also a lot of apps and APIs from Google, Facebook, Amazon and other big tech companies are FOSS.
To return to the subject, it is not so important who distributes FOSS, be it the Chrome Store, MS Store (same as GitHub now), NASA software or others, but the origin of this software and the intentions of the corresponding devs and especially the community what’s behind. It is always necessary to check it before use.
A browser is a client application that doesn’t require any servers. However, we have plenty of examples of FOSS infrastructure being funded without the need for corporations. If anything, infrastructure costs are constantly and rapidly decreasing.
Lack of commercial interest is applicable in every domain in practice. This is what sets the goals of the developers, this decides what features are developed and why they are developed. In case of commercial software, features are developed to create profit for the business first and foremost, with everything else being secondary. When ethics come into conflict with profit, then profit must win.
Giving examples of malicious open source software is not really a counter point since both closed and open software can be hostile. However, the problem with commercial software is that it has additional conflict of interest that doesn’t exist in open software. Furthermore, open software can always be forked, as often happens, when original developers take it in a direction people don’t like.
Closed software can be useful the same way buying an appliance can be useful, but it’s a fundamental mistake to invest in such software long term as a user. Sooner or later the company making it will either move in a direction you don’t like because that’s where the market is, or it’ll go out of business. When that happens you’re going to be left without useful software.
So, yes it is in fact incredibly important whether a project is FOSS and whether it’s corporate owned. Decisions have to be made on case by case basis, but FOSS is a fundamental requirement.
FOSS is of course fundamental, this I have never doubted, by allowing collaborative creation in a new project, which allows development better than in a company with a few less efficient devs. The main reason for FOSS is precisely this, what many forget and confuse FOSS with security, privacy and a free internet, which is deeply wrong, these concepts are not synonymous with FOSS, they depend on too many other factors. Because of this the most among of FOSS is used and developed by this big companies, by this way they can use Devs freelance. That is what I mean that Free Soft has nothing to do with Free Internet.
Yes a browser is a client soft, but nevertheless it is perfectly capable of sending user data, as we see in many of them, especially if it is used with synchronization functions to have the data of several devices.
This does not necessarily have to do with whether they are FOSS or not, although the main ones that have these practices coincide with large companies, Chrome, EDGE, Safari, Opera since it belongs to a Chinese company, Brave selectively with its system of not blocking sponsors and Firefox is not completely spared either.
Today I have seen a good example of how much different browsers protect the user on a well-known website, in AutoCAD web app, which is freely accessible with Chrome, Edge and Firefox, while blocking Vivaldi, UR and Dissenter. Analyzing this page it turned out that it records the inputs of the keyboard, mouse and mouse movements, sending the data to third parties.
Again, I’m not saying that FOSS guarantees things like security and privacy, rather that it’s a prerequisite. The best case scenario is software developed in the open without any commercial involvement. However, software developed by companies in the open is still strictly preferable to closed software. As I’ve already explained, my view is that it would be a worse situation if Chromium became the only engine in town, and that’s the reason Firefox is a very important project. I don’t think Google should be the sole company making a browser engine.
Google is unfortunately the dominant company on the net, but this will not change with using Firefox or another browser with Gecko, with a market presence of less than 2% and also dependent on Google. Even old, outdated IE has more users than Firefox today. For this reason, I do not believe that the path to a free internet is there. The only way to achieve freedom on the web is not to prefer one or the other browser or software license, but to end the surveillance practices used by these companies. It is useless to use instead of Chromium, another from a company that also uses these practices, I think.
Who develops a software is not so important then, without the surveillance of the user for commercial interests, then only matters who offers the best products or services. TOR and the Onion network were developed by the US defense and its secret services.
Google may be the dominant company on the net, but that doesn’t mean alternatives should be abandoned. IE used to be the dominant browser just like Chrome is today, and it was displaced in a couple of decades. Thinking that Chromium is the end of browser technology is incredibly myopic.
The only way to achieve freedom on the web is to ensure that true FOSS solutions survive going forward. Firefox is currently the best hope for the future of browsers. Who develops the software is incredibly important, and that’s a demonstrable fact. Google is driven by commercial interests, and it continues to introduce features like AMP that are hostile towards open web while removing APIs that make ad blockers work.