News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:LibreWolf: A privacy-focused Firefox fork by zahma on Monday June 27, 2022 @11:32AM (#31895996)
If I’m using Firefox with privacy badger, UBlock Origin, privacy possum, cookie and cache deleters, a URL tracker plug in, noscript, https enabled by default, a handful of others that are probably redundant on top of Firefox’s internal tracker protection, do I really stand to benefit from this fork?

In other words, is this truly necessary?

Re:LibreWolf: A privacy-focused Firefox fork by potatoalienof13 on Monday June 27, 2022 @11:36AM (#31896044)
Librewolf also disables telemetry, as well as several other mozilla services.
Re:LibreWolf: A privacy-focused Firefox fork by xcdzvyn on Tuesday June 28, 2022 @05:26AM (#31905786)
That can also be disabled in FireFox.
Re:LibreWolf: A privacy-focused Firefox fork by gchamonlive on Monday June 27, 2022 @11:36AM (#31896043)
Maybe for a zero-conf, out-of-the-box privacy-oriented firefox browsing environment, i.e. for convenience.

One question. How does website availability fare with all these plugins and options active? Does it mangle or render sites unusable? And at what rate?

Re:LibreWolf: A privacy-focused Firefox fork by zahma on Monday June 27, 2022 @11:53AM (#31896320)
When it comes to new sites, I have to usually reset noscript to allow the top level domain. Honestly I don’t know why I don’t just do that by default. At least half the websites don’t load at all without JS enabled.

On the sites with more heavy tracking —- chegg comes to mind or some different clothing stores with lots of media, payment service scripts, and heavy ad tracking like tentree — the plug-ins definitely interfere to the point where I will sometimes use a second browser so that the website operates as intended. NoScript seems to be the culprit in most cases, and I suspect the interface doesn’t adequately display all the scripts attempting to load after the initial render.

I’ve had some trouble with sites which communicate between themselves too. (Airlines do this a lot).

All in all, I’d say my browsing experience is normal to the extent that I don’t do a lot of browsing to new sites. I’ve got a good running list for noscript, but any new sites with lots of dependencies and media to load usually requires a couple refreshed after an updated rule list.

Re:LibreWolf: A privacy-focused Firefox fork by zeruch on Monday June 27, 2022 @12:13PM (#31896656)
...mostly yes, at least initially. I use uMatrix and NoScript and its a matter of configuring/'training' them over such that most browsing over a few days/weeks becomes quite fantastic.

That said, one has to get used to making those configs every time a new site is browsed (or a previous site changes significantly what it does), but really, for some of us, the experience after the fact is well worth the investment, as browsing and reading become sane again.

Re:LibreWolf: A privacy-focused Firefox fork by ac130kz on Monday June 27, 2022 @11:36AM (#31896048)
Nope, you can simply port most of their config changes straight into your Firefox
Re:LibreWolf: A privacy-focused Firefox fork by xalava on Monday June 27, 2022 @11:39AM (#31896101)
As you show, there is value in a Firefox configured out of the box. The only question is wether they can keep up with updates.
Re:LibreWolf: A privacy-focused Firefox fork by pornel on Monday June 27, 2022 @11:50AM (#31896268)
Probably not. The irony is that when you disable default browser features, sites can use this fact as a fingerprinting input, and it only makes your browser more unique.

I'd expect standard Firefox's protection + popular plugins to be good enough to reduce creepiness of everyday adtech. If you really don't like to be tracked, then the Tor browser may be a better bet. At least you'll look like every other Tor user, rather than stand out with your custom config and a niche-of-niches browser.

https://xkcd.com/1105/

Re:LibreWolf: A privacy-focused Firefox fork by Kaytaro on Monday June 27, 2022 @11:53AM (#31896321)
Maybe if you're concerned about Mozilla pushing out an anti-privacy update, as they've been known to do.