Why not fork firefox
this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2025
93 points (74.9% liked)
Linux
52837 readers
470 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
A bad move. But again i hate that many distros have a default browser and they don't let you choose.
one of the worst distros ever so I guess this is pretty obvious choice and telling to some.
Define worst? It does what it says, it's an easy stable distro for windows refugees. Slow updates doesn't make something bad
the everyday linux distro that is famous for asking people for money for their pro version, cause they know most of the userbase is coming from windows and doesnt know that everything is free?
They don't force you to buy anything. Almost all distros have a donation button on their site/git.
Nothing wrong with supporting projects you adore.
Ubuntu asks for money for their "pro" version.
It's a big reason why I switched to Debian.
Once again like Zorin, it isn't required to use the base version. Projects take time and effort, support is optional. Debian also has a donation page gonna distrohop now too?
There is a difference between a donation and a purchase. You can buy Ubuntu Pro like Zorin Pro. Its not free
You keep ignoring the "pro" version aspect of this.
Debian doesn't lock features or updates behind paywalls. It's not just about asking for donations.
What does zorin lock behind the pro version? Some themes that you could make yourself if you wanted. And they package some apps that you could manualy download. What updates are you refering to?
Why lock anything behind a paywall? They do it to take advantage of users who don't know any better. Otherwise, they would just ask for donations.
Why are you defending scummy practices? Are you a shill, fanboy, or useful idiot?
I am not a Zorin OS fanboy or anything, but honestly I don't see anything scummy about requiring payment from the user to get access to certain features of the product. It's just shareware. It's their product FOSS or not. I think they make it clear about what you get for free and what you don't. If you don't like that you don't have to use their product and you can use an alternative instead. It's not like they were a monopoly in the world of Linux distros and you have no other option. I see nothing scummy about this. It would be scummy if they would do some kind of false advertising (adverties features you actually don't get or adverties features in a misleading way) or if they started moving features from the free to the pro version that used to be free, because some people may have relyed on these features.
Can you elaborate? Because to me this feels like saying that the local grocery shop is scummy because it wants people to pay instead of relying on donations. If the whole OS was paid like RedHat Linux is than it would be OK or you consider that to be also a case of taking advantage of users who don't know any better.
Congrats.
Businessmen bank on people with low standards like yours so they can make more money off of you than they would with me.
Why don't you explain your arguments or make counter arguments instead of attacking your opponent personally. How do I matter here?
Nah people just frame it as if you need to buy it, while that's not true. No I'm not defending scummy practices, I'm just pro supporting software that you enjoy. That people like you can't handle others opinions and immediately resort to calling it "fanboy or useful idiot." The world doesn't need to be a copy pasta of opinions
Brave hates gays
"we replaced the browser with ad ware, that we even admit we had to ship settings to minimise its malware effect"
Y not gnome web
talk about bad taste
Recent firefox policy change is controversial, but how brave is better?
"We don't like the proposed new Coke recipe, so we're switching to drinking raw undiluted sewage instead".
Brave marketing has gone crazy to convince people it's less dodgy than Firefox. Come on!
Every time someone says anything positive about Brave I assume they're part of the Crypto scheme, or love Brave's CEO.
Yeah. Viral marketing is real but people never seem to be able to identify it.
view more: next ›