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.
IE was just dropped by a better browser from the same company.
Authentic FOSS is never going to be abandoned, even though the biggest producers are these big companies, simply for reasons of adaptability and development, useful for both private devs and big companies.
That Firefox exists or not, will not change much, they are equally managed and depending on Google, because it is Google that determines the standards and Web formats and also Firefox has to orient itself to these standards so as not to lose compatibility.
As you can see, it is not about browser technology and which of these we use. It is that these surveillance techniques are not incorporated. Trackers and fingerprintings are no longer a problem, these can be easily blocked, either by the browser itself or through extensions, so Google and others already use more advanced techniques, such as FLOC, Pixel ads, Idle API, Network Info, E-Tag tracking, Header sniffing…and so on, apart from these reCaptchas when you register in a web. This is the real problem in the web and what makes it the property of Google, not if you use one or the other browser.
IE was originally dethroned by Firefox and Chrome. This happened around a decade before MS came out with Edge. Again, your statement that Firefox is dependent on Google is simply not correct. The standards still have to go through 3WC, and Mozilla existing as an independent entity is pretty much the only reason this is still happening. Meanwhile, companies making browsers based on Chromium are entirely dependent on Google.
It’s also absolutely false that trackers and fingerprinting are no longer a problem or can be blocked. It’s pretty much impossible to block tracking at this point unless you use Tor. In fact, browser extensions meant to block tracking can themselves be used to track you because they can end up creating a unique fingerprint.
Things like AMP and plans for removing hooks used by ad blocker are far bigger concerns for me.
Unfortunately, even with TOR it is not possible to avoid tracking completely, it can only be alleviated, which all privacy oriented browsers do with only slight differences.
Even more so using a VPN whose use is becoming increasingly essential, apart from a whole series of extensions (Trace and SiteBleacher are good choices, also for Firefox)
Firefox is no exception to this either.
And yes, Mozilla is dependent on Google, apart from receiving its income through it and its services, apart from it is also obliged to use certain APIs, so as not to lose compatibility with many pages, since it is Google, as I said before, that determines a large part of the web format, either directly or indirectly.
Chromium, if used as is, is naturally filled with all sorts of APIs that allow Google to track the user, but at least Vivaldi removes most of them or leaves it to the user’s choice in the Privacy settings (which don’t do any other Chromium).
That Chromium is a Google product does not mean that it depends on it, more than TOR does not depend on the US defense and the CIA, precisely because they are FOSS products, Google can only add things that allow tracking and it is a matter of the different Devs of the forks to eliminate them, what Vivaldi does (like FLOC, Idle API and others), for this reason it always takes a week or so, until Vivaldi has an update, after Chromium does. If I desactivate in it’s privacy settings all the Google API’s, it’s even impossible to acces any Google services or pages que depends to Google, because of this, Vivaldi let do it in the settings to the like of the user, that is, Vivaldi is as private as the user want it.
We can not forget that Google, apart from its way of spying on the user, on the other hand offers the best services and applications, many of them without real alternative, in the educational environment for schools and universities, professional, scientific, things like StreetView, YouTube, where we can only use Front-ends or clients … etc).
We can only hope that, by law we force him to return to his original motto ‘Don’t be evil’, since it is only the problem of his user tracking, which advises to avoid it, no other.
Vivaldi is the only browser company, which is active against these user surveillance practices, nor is Mozilla on this list, nor is any other of the large American companies, for which the user is obviously only a commodity.
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.
IE was just dropped by a better browser from the same company. Authentic FOSS is never going to be abandoned, even though the biggest producers are these big companies, simply for reasons of adaptability and development, useful for both private devs and big companies. That Firefox exists or not, will not change much, they are equally managed and depending on Google, because it is Google that determines the standards and Web formats and also Firefox has to orient itself to these standards so as not to lose compatibility. As you can see, it is not about browser technology and which of these we use. It is that these surveillance techniques are not incorporated. Trackers and fingerprintings are no longer a problem, these can be easily blocked, either by the browser itself or through extensions, so Google and others already use more advanced techniques, such as FLOC, Pixel ads, Idle API, Network Info, E-Tag tracking, Header sniffing…and so on, apart from these reCaptchas when you register in a web. This is the real problem in the web and what makes it the property of Google, not if you use one or the other browser.
IE was originally dethroned by Firefox and Chrome. This happened around a decade before MS came out with Edge. Again, your statement that Firefox is dependent on Google is simply not correct. The standards still have to go through 3WC, and Mozilla existing as an independent entity is pretty much the only reason this is still happening. Meanwhile, companies making browsers based on Chromium are entirely dependent on Google.
It’s also absolutely false that trackers and fingerprinting are no longer a problem or can be blocked. It’s pretty much impossible to block tracking at this point unless you use Tor. In fact, browser extensions meant to block tracking can themselves be used to track you because they can end up creating a unique fingerprint.
Things like AMP and plans for removing hooks used by ad blocker are far bigger concerns for me.
Unfortunately, even with TOR it is not possible to avoid tracking completely, it can only be alleviated, which all privacy oriented browsers do with only slight differences. Even more so using a VPN whose use is becoming increasingly essential, apart from a whole series of extensions (Trace and SiteBleacher are good choices, also for Firefox) Firefox is no exception to this either.
And yes, Mozilla is dependent on Google, apart from receiving its income through it and its services, apart from it is also obliged to use certain APIs, so as not to lose compatibility with many pages, since it is Google, as I said before, that determines a large part of the web format, either directly or indirectly. Chromium, if used as is, is naturally filled with all sorts of APIs that allow Google to track the user, but at least Vivaldi removes most of them or leaves it to the user’s choice in the Privacy settings (which don’t do any other Chromium).
That Chromium is a Google product does not mean that it depends on it, more than TOR does not depend on the US defense and the CIA, precisely because they are FOSS products, Google can only add things that allow tracking and it is a matter of the different Devs of the forks to eliminate them, what Vivaldi does (like FLOC, Idle API and others), for this reason it always takes a week or so, until Vivaldi has an update, after Chromium does. If I desactivate in it’s privacy settings all the Google API’s, it’s even impossible to acces any Google services or pages que depends to Google, because of this, Vivaldi let do it in the settings to the like of the user, that is, Vivaldi is as private as the user want it.
We can not forget that Google, apart from its way of spying on the user, on the other hand offers the best services and applications, many of them without real alternative, in the educational environment for schools and universities, professional, scientific, things like StreetView, YouTube, where we can only use Front-ends or clients … etc).
We can only hope that, by law we force him to return to his original motto ‘Don’t be evil’, since it is only the problem of his user tracking, which advises to avoid it, no other.
Vivaldi is the only browser company, which is active against these user surveillance practices, nor is Mozilla on this list, nor is any other of the large American companies, for which the user is obviously only a commodity.