this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
94 points (71.8% liked)

Firefox

17903 readers
84 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Also from Jamie Zawinski yesterday: Mozilla's Original Sin

Some will tell you that Mozilla's worst decision was to accept funding from Google, and that may have been the first domino, but I hold that implementing DRM is what doomed them, as it led to their culture of capitulation. It demonstrated that their decisions were the decisions of a company shipping products, not those of a non-profit devoted to preserving the open web.

Those are different things and are very much in conflict. They picked one. They picked the wrong one.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] c0smokram3r@midwest.social 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Thoughts on Mullvad browser?

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I’m not a security expert, but I think it’s roughly on-par with LibreWolf. I think they both come without Encrypted Media Extensions.

https://mullvad.net/en/browser/hard-facts

And here's a listing of the compile options:

[…]

  • --disable-eme (Encrypted Media Extensions, for other DRMs)
[–] c0smokram3r@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago

TY for the info 👽

[–] tmpod 1 points 4 months ago

The Mullvad Browser is the Tor Browser without Tor, that is, it's a Firefox-based browser with lots of privacy and anonymity improvements, but without the Tor network layer. Mullvad actually sponsored the Tor project in return for some help getting it done, or something along those lines.

As far as I understand (I'm not super familiar with LibreWolf), Mullvad fork should be "better" in that regard.

[–] ItsComplicated@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago

They do not support dark mode on web pages if this is important to you. Reason given is easy to fingerprint.