> Mozilla: Break free from big tech - our products put you in control of a safer, more private internet experience.
(Adds AI that needs 7 about:config entries to disable, until users roast it enough that they add an off switch.)
> Waterfox: And we still don’t have AI in the browser. That hasn’t changed. The browser’s job is to load web pages, keep your data private, and get out of the way. It seems other browsers have forgotten that.
At some point I think we should just redirect the Firefox funding to Waterfox.
> The original text implied Brave special cases ads on their search partner’s page - they don’t. Brave blocks third party ads on all websites by default, regardless of any partnership, and offers an additional aggressive mode that blocks first party ads as well. Waterfox’s approach of allowing text ads on the default search partner page is our own decision for sustainability,
I would like to stress on the last sentence:
Waterfox’s approach of allowing text ads on the default search partner page is our own decision for sustainability
So basically they are permitting ads from their paying partners.
I think that's an unfair framing. No one is paying Waterfox to allow ads - it's a revenue share from the default search engine (which I've always been transparent about)[1], same as every other independent browser that has a search partner. It's not an "acceptable ads" programme where advertisers pay to be whitelisted.
On the Cookie Banner Reduction page[1] the section titled "Turn Cookie Banner Reduction on or off" talks about settings which don't exist (at least in the latest portable version 6.6.7 from Portapps.io). There is no option to block cookie banners in all windows.
Well, the default search engine is definitely your business partner, no? So they are getting a different tratment: default search engine (like in most other browsers, nothing fancy here) and their ads in their SERP are not blocked - at least by default - by the embedded ad-blocking engine of WaterFox. Isn't that correct? Happy to stand corrected, if it's the case.
Yes, that's correct. Startpage is the default search partner, and their search ads aren't blocked by default. Users can enable blocking on that page too with a single toggle in settings. That's why I laid it all out in this post, to let users know - it's about keeping Waterfox sustainable (paying bills, putting food on the table) as it's my only source of income currently.
I've mentioned in another comment, that I've tried other ways such as with subscription paid services, but unfortunately there's nowhere near enough traction for it to be sustainable.
Also bare in mind Waterfox currently comes with nothing, so this is just an extra layer of protection.
>I think that's an unfair framing. No one is paying Waterfox to allow ads
...
>Yes, that's correct. Startpage is the default search partner, and their search ads aren't blocked by default.
The framing seems fair to me. Certainly not more unfair than those who criticize Firefox for having a search deal that defaults to Google while allowing the user to change it (which some people do)
The distinction I'm drawing is between a revenue share from a search partnership and something like an acceptable ads programme where individual advertisers pay to bypass the blocker - those are different things.
"For how it works in practice: by default, text ads will remain visible on our default search partner’s page - currently Startpage. The idea is that this is what will keep the lights on."
Which is still miles above Firefox (Win11/x64, 149.0, EU), where you have to untick everying from "Suggestions from Firefox" to "Trending search suggestions" to "allow personalised extension recommendations" to "Recommended stories" and "sponsored shortcuts" on the home screen, because [1]https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-suggest?as=u&ut...
> We partner with adMarketplace, Yelp and AccuWeather to provide sponsored suggestions that enhance your browsing experience with helpful, context-based information.
And if you leave Firefox for a while you get the "welcome back" bar that lets you ... uninstall ublock with one click before you've realised it.
Waterfox has text ads on the default search page based on your search query, not based on tracking you [2]. And it's really easy to turn off.
the search partnership model is one of the few things that actually works for independent browser projects. tried donations, tried subscriptions — the conversion rates are brutal. having a transparent default search deal that users can toggle off is probably the best compromise between sustainability and user trust.
The ads on default search partner is a fine compromise - reality is that projects need money, and if this helps them (and makes it less dependant on donations) then great! As long as the ad blocking happens elsewhere, it is fine.
Reminds me of Netscape Navigator adding a popup blocker, but also adding the ability to allowlist sites - so that it could have the Netscape website allowlisted by default.
I remember using Waterfox when it was new. I moved away from it when Firefox started pushing 64 bit builds natively, and I've stuck with it since then. Recently though it does seem as if they might be going down a dark path, so perhaps I'll consider switching again. I remember Waterfox was hard forked after Quantum became a thing, in order to keep support with XPI - is that still the case?
The hard fork was "Waterfox Classic", which just became unsustainable to maintain.
Rather than support for XPI (which is just the packaging for Firefox webextensions), the current version of Waterfox does still support bootstrapped extensions - in theory anyone can still write one, with access to all the privileged JavaScript APIs typically not accessible to MV2/MV3 webextensions.
It's not widely used though, there are two repos I'm aware of that take advantage of this:
Adless monetization is a very difficult challenge - something I've worked on many times over the years (compute-monetization, shopping-commission monetization, payment interchange monetization) and it's always been very difficult to compete with ads. I think the waterfox approach of "ads if you're OK with it" opt-in and sane defaults is the better one, but it's very difficult to make ends meat compared to competitors offering full monetization on by default when you're only getting it (and getting less per search) if users opt-in.
Compute/resource monetization is the one after all these years that has done the best at replacing ads as a means of monetization for users, and it requires a very intelligent scheduling system + ethical ecosystem to work (most have just tried running crypto miners that cost users more electricity than they earn).
Also, the fact waterfox has almost zero telemetry out of the box and doesn't even have a bonafide number for active users as a result is a good hint at how sincere the "anti-tracking" ethos is applied. Most open source applications have some form of telemetry, even "anonymous" telemetry - but this does really stand out.
Had the pleasure of working with Alex while at System1. Great guy. If I remember correctly I got one tiny change merged into Waterfox that's probably since been undone in the years since :-).
I am surprise there is no mention of Librewolf here. The differences of Librewolf and Waterfox is pretty hard to grasp, I am digging a little bit but so far I guess I would say using any of them is still way better than the main alternatives.
Librewolf is, to me, the way better alternative as this is really in the FOSS mindset : a tool for everyone to use and by anyone to contribute. Seeing their plateform alone (Lemmy/Matrix/Codeberg, they also have a reddit community it seems) you can already see this is an other world than Waterwolf's bluesky/reddit/github. To be fair I can understand the SNS part but the github is a big redflag to me.
As usual I can see people that are very probably sincere in their goals not realizing the way they are going will lead to the usual enshitification: company focus, brave dependency, etc.
I note that Waterfox seems to legally originate from UK and it is refreshing to have an ecosystem that is not centralized in 1 country : for the sake of everyone it is better not to rely to much on 1 legislator (see age verification for instance).
Librewolf and Waterfox have always had different goals. Waterfox has always had a more opinionated take on defaults and privacy. Essentially the goal has been keep the web as private as possible without breaking it (I know Librewolf is more aggressive there and that sometimes leads to website breakages) and I think I've managed that well, especially with the implementation of Oblivious DNS by default.
The upside of Librewolf being a community project is also IMO its downside - there isn't any accountability and with the current climate around the world becoming more hostile to online services, I think governance is hugely important, which is why I've tried to collate everything as much as I can: https://www.waterfox.com/docs/policies/company-information/
At the end of the day, if something goes wrong, at least with Waterfox I can be held accountable.
There was a recent comment: "if you don't know: any browser extension can read input/password fields across all site(s) you gave it access to (yeah, it's crazy but unfortunately true)."
Nothing to "fix" per se - webextensions need to interact with website data, otherwise they wouldn't be much use. Any extension with content script access can read page content including form fields.
The only real mitigation is being selective about which extensions you install and what permissions you grant them (even then, ownership of extensions change hands, updates can change what they do... it's a never ending battle really).
My naive fix would be to disable extensions from accessing form field data without explicit approval. Hell, add different approval boxes for read, write, and hidden-text.
> The differences of Librewolf and Waterfox is pretty hard to grasp
I use Waterfox on Linux and one of the things I like the most is that it works with the global menu bar in Unity, Xfce and so on. LibreWolf, in my testing, does not. My experiment with it ended there, TBH. (Neither did Floorp.)
Hopping between Waterfox and Firefox is easy because Waterfox works with Mozilla Sync. I think LibreWolf might not, and I have read somewhere that it disables the Mozilla password manager.
I find Waterfox UI and interop better, so I use it.
Librewolf may be even more private, but the poor UI was a deal-breaker for me. YMMV.
I've tried a few ways - people are generous with donations, but you can't really live off of it and I have a subscription based search service, but people just aren't willing to pay.
This is basically the only potential way I can keep this going, even then there may not be much uptake, but it's a hail Mary.
I came across Waterfox a number of times over the years, but I think it will be difficult to get a similar amount of reach for your search engine. In particular, on the home page of Waterfox, there is nothing even hinting at the existence of the search service. Maybe this is intentional, as it is in public beta for now, but I think it would help to at least note its existence there, or near the `donate` section (as a means of support, rather than direct donation). Also make sure that this directly exists as one of the search engine options for Waterfox, if it isn't already, every click involved in the setup will make it easier for people to try out.
But charging $5 / $10 for basically what StartPage does (to the best of my understanding) is going to be a tough pitch either way. Out of interest, what would the pricing for the Google API look like, if you had no other costs involved?
There is no pure browser anymore. The little red hen of Google funds everything, and forks like Waterfox just change a few parts of the UI but still rely on the upstream for all actual browser code. Even Mozilla was bootstrapped by AOL-Time Warner Back in the day. If you look at Ladybird they already have lots of ad companies funding it as well and will demand its enshittification if it gets popular.
I get the scepticism but IMO the reaction at the time was rough and I partially get why.
System1 is a search syndication company. Their business is contextual ads on search results - no PII, no tracking profiles, no behavioural targeting. It's functionally the same model as DuckDuckGo. If I'd sold to DDG, I don't think anyone would've batted an eyelid.
I get it, the timing (privacy browser sold to company with "ad" in its description) looked terrible in a headline and I take responsibility for not communicating it better at the time, which I feel like wouldn't have led to such a massive furor.
You’re right 100% The guy literally sold his browser to an online advertising company and then bought it back. Why do you think startpage is the default? Look up the online advertising company that owns it and then look up who he sold the browser to before taking it back.
Did you read the same article as me? The word is singularly used in the context of how do you earn money as a project, i.e. sustain the effort. It's a bit of a leap to imply this is impure unless they made some contract stating the opposite or are doing something dark.
Oh yeah, the part where he sold the browser to an online advertising company that just happens to run startpage is purity huh? Damn, Google and Chrome must be saints
You must be one of those guys who reads Philip Morris “articles” on the benefits of smoking and concludes there’s no evidence for harm.
I mean first thing I do in any browser is change the search engine so it's not like it affects me in any way. I don't expect opensource projects to never make deals that give them some money, I just want them to be fully transparent when they do. Waterfox is transparent and clearly states who and how they sell their user data to.
So they’re just shilling their own search product on their own browser. No different from Google and Chrome. Except with some corporate bootlicking from running dog lackeys.
He literally sold it to an online advertising company lol.
EDIT: haha, the best defence of this guy you guys can muster is "If you don't pay me, I'll sell your data to online advertising companies" and that this is some kind of good thing.
It's somewhat funny that this guy asks for 850$/hour for consulting (in his hn profile description), never donates to anything, and writes multiple comments complaining like this.
Donated to Bram Moolenaar or rather to the things he asked me to donate to instead. Didn’t sell vim to an ad company and then send his friends here to HN to act all holier than thou about selling to an ad company. At least Firefox didn’t get sold to The Trade Desk. Vim, brought to you by Doubleclick. Yeah never had that happen.
I'm impressed by how thoroughly you ignored the question of whether your own inaction was partly responsible for the outcome that occurred later, and which you dislike.
It has persuaded me that your own inaction was totally unrelated to this outcome.
> Mozilla: Break free from big tech - our products put you in control of a safer, more private internet experience.
(Adds AI that needs 7 about:config entries to disable, until users roast it enough that they add an off switch.)
> Waterfox: And we still don’t have AI in the browser. That hasn’t changed. The browser’s job is to load web pages, keep your data private, and get out of the way. It seems other browsers have forgotten that.
At some point I think we should just redirect the Firefox funding to Waterfox.
From TFA:
> The original text implied Brave special cases ads on their search partner’s page - they don’t. Brave blocks third party ads on all websites by default, regardless of any partnership, and offers an additional aggressive mode that blocks first party ads as well. Waterfox’s approach of allowing text ads on the default search partner page is our own decision for sustainability,
I would like to stress on the last sentence:
So basically they are permitting ads from their paying partners.I think that's an unfair framing. No one is paying Waterfox to allow ads - it's a revenue share from the default search engine (which I've always been transparent about)[1], same as every other independent browser that has a search partner. It's not an "acceptable ads" programme where advertisers pay to be whitelisted.
[1] https://www.waterfox.com/docs/policies/revenue-model/
FYI the documentation seems to be outdated.
On the Cookie Banner Reduction page[1] the section titled "Turn Cookie Banner Reduction on or off" talks about settings which don't exist (at least in the latest portable version 6.6.7 from Portapps.io). There is no option to block cookie banners in all windows.
[1] https://www.waterfox.com/support/cookie-banner-reduction/#tu...
Well, the default search engine is definitely your business partner, no? So they are getting a different tratment: default search engine (like in most other browsers, nothing fancy here) and their ads in their SERP are not blocked - at least by default - by the embedded ad-blocking engine of WaterFox. Isn't that correct? Happy to stand corrected, if it's the case.
Yes, that's correct. Startpage is the default search partner, and their search ads aren't blocked by default. Users can enable blocking on that page too with a single toggle in settings. That's why I laid it all out in this post, to let users know - it's about keeping Waterfox sustainable (paying bills, putting food on the table) as it's my only source of income currently.
I've mentioned in another comment, that I've tried other ways such as with subscription paid services, but unfortunately there's nowhere near enough traction for it to be sustainable.
Also bare in mind Waterfox currently comes with nothing, so this is just an extra layer of protection.
>I think that's an unfair framing. No one is paying Waterfox to allow ads
...
>Yes, that's correct. Startpage is the default search partner, and their search ads aren't blocked by default.
The framing seems fair to me. Certainly not more unfair than those who criticize Firefox for having a search deal that defaults to Google while allowing the user to change it (which some people do)
The distinction I'm drawing is between a revenue share from a search partnership and something like an acceptable ads programme where individual advertisers pay to bypass the blocker - those are different things.
"For how it works in practice: by default, text ads will remain visible on our default search partner’s page - currently Startpage. The idea is that this is what will keep the lights on."
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Which is still miles above Firefox (Win11/x64, 149.0, EU), where you have to untick everying from "Suggestions from Firefox" to "Trending search suggestions" to "allow personalised extension recommendations" to "Recommended stories" and "sponsored shortcuts" on the home screen, because [1]https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-suggest?as=u&ut...
> We partner with adMarketplace, Yelp and AccuWeather to provide sponsored suggestions that enhance your browsing experience with helpful, context-based information.
And if you leave Firefox for a while you get the "welcome back" bar that lets you ... uninstall ublock with one click before you've realised it.
Waterfox has text ads on the default search page based on your search query, not based on tracking you [2]. And it's really easy to turn off.
[1] https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-suggest?as=u&ut... and https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/sponsor-privacy?as=u&ut...
[2] https://www.startpage.com/privacy-please/startpage-articles/...
the search partnership model is one of the few things that actually works for independent browser projects. tried donations, tried subscriptions — the conversion rates are brutal. having a transparent default search deal that users can toggle off is probably the best compromise between sustainability and user trust.
I do think projects like Waterfox are valuable precisely because they push back on some of Mozilla's product decisions
The ads on default search partner is a fine compromise - reality is that projects need money, and if this helps them (and makes it less dependant on donations) then great! As long as the ad blocking happens elsewhere, it is fine.
I need to move back to waterfox again...
Reminds me of Netscape Navigator adding a popup blocker, but also adding the ability to allowlist sites - so that it could have the Netscape website allowlisted by default.
Yes, enabled everywhere - and it will just be a simple toggle to also enable it on the search partner page, no hoops to jump through.
This is how we keep the lights on
I remember using Waterfox when it was new. I moved away from it when Firefox started pushing 64 bit builds natively, and I've stuck with it since then. Recently though it does seem as if they might be going down a dark path, so perhaps I'll consider switching again. I remember Waterfox was hard forked after Quantum became a thing, in order to keep support with XPI - is that still the case?
The hard fork was "Waterfox Classic", which just became unsustainable to maintain.
Rather than support for XPI (which is just the packaging for Firefox webextensions), the current version of Waterfox does still support bootstrapped extensions - in theory anyone can still write one, with access to all the privileged JavaScript APIs typically not accessible to MV2/MV3 webextensions.
It's not widely used though, there are two repos I'm aware of that take advantage of this:
https://github.com/xiaoxiaoflood/firefox-scripts/tree/master...
https://github.com/onemen/TabMixPlus/
Adless monetization is a very difficult challenge - something I've worked on many times over the years (compute-monetization, shopping-commission monetization, payment interchange monetization) and it's always been very difficult to compete with ads. I think the waterfox approach of "ads if you're OK with it" opt-in and sane defaults is the better one, but it's very difficult to make ends meat compared to competitors offering full monetization on by default when you're only getting it (and getting less per search) if users opt-in.
Compute/resource monetization is the one after all these years that has done the best at replacing ads as a means of monetization for users, and it requires a very intelligent scheduling system + ethical ecosystem to work (most have just tried running crypto miners that cost users more electricity than they earn).
Also, the fact waterfox has almost zero telemetry out of the box and doesn't even have a bonafide number for active users as a result is a good hint at how sincere the "anti-tracking" ethos is applied. Most open source applications have some form of telemetry, even "anonymous" telemetry - but this does really stand out.
Had the pleasure of working with Alex while at System1. Great guy. If I remember correctly I got one tiny change merged into Waterfox that's probably since been undone in the years since :-).
Interesting I've never heard of waterfox before. Looks interesting!
I've covered it a few times on the Register. :-)
5Y ago:
https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/04/waterfox_firefox_fork...
Last year:
https://www.theregister.com/2025/12/18/firefox_no_ai_alterna...
This year:
https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/19/just_the_browser/
I am surprise there is no mention of Librewolf here. The differences of Librewolf and Waterfox is pretty hard to grasp, I am digging a little bit but so far I guess I would say using any of them is still way better than the main alternatives.
Librewolf is, to me, the way better alternative as this is really in the FOSS mindset : a tool for everyone to use and by anyone to contribute. Seeing their plateform alone (Lemmy/Matrix/Codeberg, they also have a reddit community it seems) you can already see this is an other world than Waterwolf's bluesky/reddit/github. To be fair I can understand the SNS part but the github is a big redflag to me.
As usual I can see people that are very probably sincere in their goals not realizing the way they are going will lead to the usual enshitification: company focus, brave dependency, etc.
I note that Waterfox seems to legally originate from UK and it is refreshing to have an ecosystem that is not centralized in 1 country : for the sake of everyone it is better not to rely to much on 1 legislator (see age verification for instance).
Librewolf and Waterfox have always had different goals. Waterfox has always had a more opinionated take on defaults and privacy. Essentially the goal has been keep the web as private as possible without breaking it (I know Librewolf is more aggressive there and that sometimes leads to website breakages) and I think I've managed that well, especially with the implementation of Oblivious DNS by default.
The upside of Librewolf being a community project is also IMO its downside - there isn't any accountability and with the current climate around the world becoming more hostile to online services, I think governance is hugely important, which is why I've tried to collate everything as much as I can: https://www.waterfox.com/docs/policies/company-information/
At the end of the day, if something goes wrong, at least with Waterfox I can be held accountable.
There was a recent comment: "if you don't know: any browser extension can read input/password fields across all site(s) you gave it access to (yeah, it's crazy but unfortunately true)."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47553048
Would either WF or LW fix that? Is it true?
Nothing to "fix" per se - webextensions need to interact with website data, otherwise they wouldn't be much use. Any extension with content script access can read page content including form fields.
The only real mitigation is being selective about which extensions you install and what permissions you grant them (even then, ownership of extensions change hands, updates can change what they do... it's a never ending battle really).
My naive fix would be to disable extensions from accessing form field data without explicit approval. Hell, add different approval boxes for read, write, and hidden-text.
What am I missing?
> The differences of Librewolf and Waterfox is pretty hard to grasp
I use Waterfox on Linux and one of the things I like the most is that it works with the global menu bar in Unity, Xfce and so on. LibreWolf, in my testing, does not. My experiment with it ended there, TBH. (Neither did Floorp.)
Hopping between Waterfox and Firefox is easy because Waterfox works with Mozilla Sync. I think LibreWolf might not, and I have read somewhere that it disables the Mozilla password manager.
I find Waterfox UI and interop better, so I use it.
Librewolf may be even more private, but the poor UI was a deal-breaker for me. YMMV.
LibreWolf can work with Mozilla Sync, they just disable it by default.
In practice, I think it comes down to what you value more
Feels like the real problem isn’t ads, it’s that there’s no widely accepted funding model for open source.
I've tried a few ways - people are generous with donations, but you can't really live off of it and I have a subscription based search service, but people just aren't willing to pay.
This is basically the only potential way I can keep this going, even then there may not be much uptake, but it's a hail Mary.
I came across Waterfox a number of times over the years, but I think it will be difficult to get a similar amount of reach for your search engine. In particular, on the home page of Waterfox, there is nothing even hinting at the existence of the search service. Maybe this is intentional, as it is in public beta for now, but I think it would help to at least note its existence there, or near the `donate` section (as a means of support, rather than direct donation). Also make sure that this directly exists as one of the search engine options for Waterfox, if it isn't already, every click involved in the setup will make it easier for people to try out.
But charging $5 / $10 for basically what StartPage does (to the best of my understanding) is going to be a tough pitch either way. Out of interest, what would the pricing for the Google API look like, if you had no other costs involved?
That 2019 logo looks fantastic.
The modern logo reminds me of Microsoft Word for Mac 2010 :(
There is no pure browser anymore. The little red hen of Google funds everything, and forks like Waterfox just change a few parts of the UI but still rely on the upstream for all actual browser code. Even Mozilla was bootstrapped by AOL-Time Warner Back in the day. If you look at Ladybird they already have lots of ad companies funding it as well and will demand its enshittification if it gets popular.
Which of Ladybird's sponsors are adtech? None of their websites proclaim them to be in the advertising business at least.
Have you checked out Ladybird, it's independent.
20 years a forker?
Sorry, I still can't get over the system1 shit in 2020.
I get the scepticism but IMO the reaction at the time was rough and I partially get why.
System1 is a search syndication company. Their business is contextual ads on search results - no PII, no tracking profiles, no behavioural targeting. It's functionally the same model as DuckDuckGo. If I'd sold to DDG, I don't think anyone would've batted an eyelid.
I get it, the timing (privacy browser sold to company with "ad" in its description) looked terrible in a headline and I take responsibility for not communicating it better at the time, which I feel like wouldn't have led to such a massive furor.
I love how "15 Years of Forking" is right next to "There is no Spoon" on the HN homepage right now :D
whether you use waterfox or librewolf, having anything outside of Blink is the only thing keeping the open web breathing.
Everyone starts out pure but then the lucre calls.
> Waterfox’s approach of allowing text ads on the default search partner page is our own decision for sustainability
"Sustainability" indeed.
You either die an open source project, or live long enough to see yourself become ad-driven in the name of sustainability.
Firefox has already done so to google, and when a fork is big enough, they certainly will hear the siren's call.
You’re right 100% The guy literally sold his browser to an online advertising company and then bought it back. Why do you think startpage is the default? Look up the online advertising company that owns it and then look up who he sold the browser to before taking it back.
Did you read the same article as me? The word is singularly used in the context of how do you earn money as a project, i.e. sustain the effort. It's a bit of a leap to imply this is impure unless they made some contract stating the opposite or are doing something dark.
Oh yeah, the part where he sold the browser to an online advertising company that just happens to run startpage is purity huh? Damn, Google and Chrome must be saints
You must be one of those guys who reads Philip Morris “articles” on the benefits of smoking and concludes there’s no evidence for harm.
I mean first thing I do in any browser is change the search engine so it's not like it affects me in any way. I don't expect opensource projects to never make deals that give them some money, I just want them to be fully transparent when they do. Waterfox is transparent and clearly states who and how they sell their user data to.
You can however of course swap out the default Search Engine with Google or whatever privacy focused replacement (e.g. DuckDuckGo, Kagi, etc).
Have you ever sent a donation to Alex?
Why would I donate to someone who is willing to sell my attention?
Did you do it before they did so?
Looks like I judged them well in not doing so. I would have been such a sucker. After all, donating to corporations is for bootlickers.
https://www.waterfox.com/blog/waterfox-has-joined-system1/
So they’re just shilling their own search product on their own browser. No different from Google and Chrome. Except with some corporate bootlicking from running dog lackeys.
He literally sold it to an online advertising company lol.
EDIT: haha, the best defence of this guy you guys can muster is "If you don't pay me, I'll sell your data to online advertising companies" and that this is some kind of good thing.
Right. So you don't ever donate to anything, right? Just in case. The future. You know?
It's somewhat funny that this guy asks for 850$/hour for consulting (in his hn profile description), never donates to anything, and writes multiple comments complaining like this.
Donated to Bram Moolenaar or rather to the things he asked me to donate to instead. Didn’t sell vim to an ad company and then send his friends here to HN to act all holier than thou about selling to an ad company. At least Firefox didn’t get sold to The Trade Desk. Vim, brought to you by Doubleclick. Yeah never had that happen.
Maybe if you donated some money he wouldn't have had to.
I'm impressed by how thoroughly you ignored the question of whether your own inaction was partly responsible for the outcome that occurred later, and which you dislike.
It has persuaded me that your own inaction was totally unrelated to this outcome.