Replacing Firefox to improve user privacy...

vimanuelt

We are now able to access the Security section in the forum, so let us move the discussion to:
https://forums.ghostbsd.org/d/385-web-browser-security

grahamperrin

vimanuelt please don't make this discussion private.

I'm already disappointed by the lack of transparency.

ericbsd

Chromium has CVEs that show up often. We will have to build packages more often than with Firefox.

vimanuelt

ericbsd
Yes, we have been considering how to improve the GhostBSD Ports system to make maintenance more convenient and less burdensome.

One area of focus is port serialization, which could simplify the process of managing and tracking port changes. You can read more about this here:
GhostBSD Station Series and Ports

We are also exploring automation for ports tree maintenance, aiming to reduce the need for manual intervention and human error. An early version of this effort is discussed in the following forum post:
A First Attempt at a GhostBSD Automated Ports Tree Maintenance Script

grahamperrin

vimanuelt I know how to fix it.

It's not appropriate for a grandmother who wants to learn how to use a computer.

vimanuelt

grahamperrin
Let us improve that.

ericbsd

grahamperrin what lack of transparency?

grahamperrin

grahamperrin lack of transparency.

grahamperrin Why did you omit Telegram?

vimanuelt … faster interaction. …

Faster is not necessarily better.

ericbsd … It is not private.

Neither is it transparent.

Non-public use of Telegram is opaque.

If it's not already clear: I quit the app after writing about the instant turn-off; I have not returned.

vimanuelt

Here is a quick recap.

Summary of the Discussion

1. Proposal to Replace Firefox

User vimanuelt initiated the conversation by suggesting the replacement of Firefox with a browser that offers stronger privacy defaults. The primary concern was Firefox's telemetry features, such as Shield Studies and Normandy, which allow remote configuration and data collection, potentially compromising user privacy. forums.ghostbsd.org+1forums.ghostbsd.org+1

2. Evaluation of Alternatives

Several browsers were considered as potential replacements:forums.ghostbsd.org+1forums.ghostbsd.org+1

Ungoogled Chromium: Praised for its removal of Google services, lack of background connections, and compatibility with Chrome extensions. However, it requires manual configuration for functionalities like search engine setup and cookie management. forums.ghostbsd.org
LibreWolf: Recognized for its strict privacy settings and removal of telemetry. Some users found its default configurations too restrictive, potentially hindering usability. forums.ghostbsd.org forums.ghostbsd.org
SeaMonkey: Noted for its integrated suite of internet applications and minimal codebase. However, installation challenges due to dependency issues were reported. Flathub - Apps for Linux
Waterfox: Mentioned as a Firefox fork with telemetry disabled by default, though lacking localization packages in GhostBSD. forums.ghostbsd.org

3. Community Feedback

User grahamperrin expressed concerns about replacing Firefox, emphasizing the importance of user familiarity and the potential challenges new users might face with alternatives like Ungoogled Chromium. He highlighted issues such as the absence of a default search engine and the need for manual configurations, which could be daunting for less tech-savvy users.

Robin supported the move towards Ungoogled Chromium, valuing its privacy features and suggesting the inclusion of an updatable hosts file to enhance ad-blocking capabilities. He also mentioned SeaMonkey as a potential alternative, citing its combined browser and email functionalities.

4. Decision and Implementation

vimanuelt confirmed Eric, the project owner, approved the transition from Firefox to Ungoogled Chromium as the default browser. A patch was to be submitted to implement this change, but was later cancelled to allow Eric the timing. forums.ghostbsd.org+1Ubuntu Buzz+1

Key Considerations

Privacy vs. Usability: While Ungoogled Chromium offers enhanced privacy by default, it may require additional setup for functionalities that users expect out-of-the-box, such as search engine configuration.
User Autonomy: The community emphasized the importance of allowing users to choose their preferred browser, suggesting that GhostBSD could ship without a pre-installed browser, letting users decide based on their needs. forums.ghostbsd.org
Transparency and Trust: The discussion underscored the significance of transparency in software behavior, especially concerning data collection and remote configurations.forums.ghostbsd.org+1

grahamperrin

vimanuelt the order is misleading. Some of the feedback came after the decision was made.

Why did you omit Telegram? If I recall correctly, my near-final words there, before pleading for public discussion, were:

… instant turn-off.

– in response to misleading, anti-Mozilla propaganda.

grahamperrin

"Should we consider replacing Firefox as the default browser?"
three people responded, one of the three said "Don't replace Firefox."
the decision was announced.

vimanuelt

I see. Administrative discussions are typically posted at https://t.me/ghostbsd_dev, which serves as the primary communication channel for GhostBSD contributors. Most changes are discussed there, as it allows for faster interaction.

However, it would be helpful if the forum could also reflect those conversations, to reduce the risk of misunderstandings. Relying on multiple communication platforms can lead to confusion. I had previously proposed a more unified communication model to minimize such issues.

https://forums.ghostbsd.org/d/344-proposal-for-a-consolidated-support-and-documentation-model/6

grahamperrin

I'm more than aware of the proposal, from spillage into various topics.

grahamperrin

vimanuelt … The GhostBSD project continues to prioritize simplicity, …

What's at the home page is no longer entirely believable.

Where, previously, it was quite commonplace to find people elsewhere recommending both GhostBSD and NomadBSD (typically one first, then the other):

I leaned towards GhostBSD, despite its weaknesses in some areas.

(Let's not discuss those areas here.)

On topic: the decision to replace Firefox with ungoogled-chromium has made it more difficult to be an advocate for GhostBSD.

It pains me to share that thought, but the damage is done.

vimanuelt

grahamperrin
No. The damage has not already been done. That said, it is always good to receive feedback. The goal is not to assign blame, but rather to identify the issue and the right people who can assist in resolving the issue. Clarifying responsibility can be helpful when seeking an effective solution.

vimanuelt

grahamperrin
It seems there may be some confusion about what is being compared. On the home page, I believe GhostBSD is being compared primarily with other BSD variants. In my view, it is indeed easier to install than any of the other BSD systems.

If you are looking for a straightforward way to install a desktop-ready BSD system, GhostBSD is an excellent choice.

To help keep this thread focused, I have created a separate topic for the related aside:
https://forums.ghostbsd.org/d/391-do-you-find-anything-on-the-ghostbsd-website-as-potentially-misleading

Feel free to continue that part of the discussion there.

ericbsd

grahamperrin the change is not even done in the code yet.

Giskard

I tried both LibreWolf and Ungloogled Chromium. From a user perspective, UG requires a lot more effort to be ready to browse the web. It starts without a default search engine and without an addon store ready.
On the other hand, Librewolf is ready to be uses from the start and it just needs to uncheck a couple of boxes in the settings if you have troubles with some sites or want it to expose your dark/light theme preference.
If the aim is to provide a privacy focused browser as default, I would choose LibreWolf because it allows a user to just start browsing without any intervention. (BTW, I'm writing this comment and browsing the forum while trying LW without any modification except enabling firefox sync)

vimanuelt

Giskard
While LibreWolf is compiled to disable telemetry, the presence of Normandy or its related preferences in about:config can be concerning, especially because Normandy is Firefox’s remote configuration and experiment framework. It allows Mozilla to push configuration changes, install extensions, and alter browser behavior remotely via "Shield Studies" or "Preference Rollouts".

vimanuelt

When using Ungoogled-Chromium, users must manually configure their preferred search engine, as no default is provided. I understand how that could be inconvenient. Is privacy worth the inconvenience?

Giskard

vimanuelt my main concern with UG mainly for the add-on store. I'm used to install ublock origin, cookie autodelete, privacy badger, proton pass. With LW I can do it immediately, doing the same things that I'm used to do with Firefox, while with UG I have to follow instructions to be able to do that. Also, in chromium based browsers, now is no more possible so use the plain ublock due to the new manifest for addons: I have to use the light version or AdGuard, which are far more powerful.

I think that UG as default, would be a hard choice for a common user. Firefox is still the most easy to use from scratch and I place LW in between.

vimanuelt

Giskard
I understand. The key point is that the discussion is not about which browser you personally prefer, but rather which should be set as the default. These are two separate matters. We have already examined the available browsers and considered their respective strengths and weaknesses. At present, Ungoogled-Chromium and LibreWolf remain the leading candidates. This debate arose a few years ago as well, but browsers evolve over time, and it would be reasonable to reassess our choice in light of those changes.

That said, I do not believe it would be appropriate to override Eric’s decision. However, if he is open to the idea, we could suggest holding a poll to give the community an opportunity to provide input. It is worth remembering that Eric is the project owner, and ultimately, all decisions rest with him. What we offer are simply recommendations. :-)

Giskard

vimanuelt a reconfigured UG could be a good choice, as @Robin said. What I wrote in the comment was not to promote my preference (which would be waterfox 😉 ), but my experience while trying to use both LW and UG while thinking about what it would be like if I were a novice.

« Previous Page Next Page »