well, a browser owned (and de-owned) by an internet advertising company is enough for me not to ever touch that. We already have a chrome, which is one of the reasons we're in this mess to start with.
And yea, I did use waterfox like a decade ago.
And yea, I did use waterfox like a decade ago.
Lots of browsers make search engines and lots of search engines make browsers, so it made (and still does) make a lot of sense.
I understand seeing ad-tech and immediately expecting the worst, but a quick Look into what it actually meant and I never understood why people were so in arms about it?
If Waterfox isn't about privacy or user control, who knows where it gets sold next or what the dev adds to it next?
Edit: I just realized that the dev is the one who wrote the grandparent comment. Maybe you have an explanation that would help?
Not sure I agree with your understanding wrt Waterfox not being about user control? Always has been and the feature set matches that and that hasn’t changed.
> > Those needs are privacy related and having control over the software you use.
> That’s fair enough, but I’ve tried to stay away from branding Waterfox as such to try and avoid issues like this.
I guess maybe you were only talking about privacy and not about "having control over the software"?