Hacker News Reader

Comment by LexiMax | Hacker News Reader

Even in a compromised state, if given the choice between Firefox and Brave, I would choose Firefox 10 out of 10 times. A closed source chromium fork put out by a business that still isn't sure what its business model is and already has a fair number of "whoopsies" under its belt is a complete non-starter for me.

That is, given the choice between Firefox and Brave. For what it's worth, my current browser is Zen, and I'm quite happy with it.

View on HN

Brave is 100% FOSS. At least the client side, I've not looked into their server applications.

https://github.com/brave

Fair enough. I'd still be very hesitant to use it on account of it being a chrome fork. Moreover, I don't really understand how Brave expects to be a viable business without deeply betraying their userbase at some point.

It admittedly is a gut feeling, but Brave started out with a browser and some handwavy crypto magic beans and seemed like it careened from idea to idea looking for a business model, occasionally stepping on toes along the way. They have products like AI integration, a VPN and a firewall, but those aren't particularly stand-out products in a very crowded market.

As a point of comparison, Kagi started out with a product that people were willing to pay for, and grew other services from there. I feel comfortable giving them money, and I'd be willing to at least try their browser - if it ever releases for Windows.

Your points are valid. But what made me finally switch was that it is open source, that it has been out for roughly a decade now, and that Brendan Eich's opinions from 2014 are mostly based on his Catholic faith at the time (which obviously is likely to have changed/evolved now that we're a decade later).

> Moreover, I don't really understand how Brave expects to be a viable business without deeply betraying their userbase at some point.

They have a way better merch store than Mozilla. They should expand that.

"MERCHANDISING! Where the real money from the movie is made!"

> which obviously is likely to have changed/evolved now that we're a decade later

I refuse to make any assumptions there. Either he says he changed, or I treat him like he hasn't changed.

> Either he says he changed, or I treat him like he hasn't changed.

That kind of attitude is why things like right to be forgotten are being pushed. The world isn't set in stone.

Right to be forgotten is fine for people who aren't celebrities. If you want to be forgotten then don't have a CEO job at a huge company.

Also it generally applies to situations where people are associated with a crime and either there wasn't enough evidence or they already served their time. Neither of those is true here. He has faced nothing except people being mad at him for something he definitely did.

It would be so easy for him to say he changed. Why should I pretend it never happened if he won't do that little thing?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com