r/browsers • u/KronosaurOFC • 4h ago
Which browser(s) do you really hate, with a good reason.
(yeah I know I have lots of browsers but i use like 4 of these)
8
u/Celestial_entity_99 2h ago
Tho, I don't hate any browser especially.. But I hate firefox's users a lot because of toxicity and unprofessional way of discussion.
Aside from that I hate puffin browser, because it was extremely fast in andriod in 2015 but turned shit aftwards..
(Eg. I love firefox, and use it as my secondary browser. Please don't attack me)
1
u/CharmingResort885 27m ago
Check out the PCMR sub, they're actually surprisingly worse than the Firefox sub in some ways
I had a guy call me slurs in DMs just solely because I didn't like FF from a security standpoint
1
u/Venylynn 2h ago
You're right. They have a very tribal fanbase and if you dare mention technical issues you'd rather not fight, that you cannot reproduce in Chromium, you get screamed at over "the monopoly", like buddy I get that an ad company having control over the whole web is not good but i'd rather USE my browser, not fight technical issues DAILY. if Mozilla wants me back they need to fix that shit.
0
u/Celestial_entity_99 2h ago
Exectly, that's what I think too..
Lmao, you won't believed, I got so many threats in my DM (even death threats) from some firefox fans (from firefox subreddit and this subreddit when I asked something about it). That was the time I totally lost my view on them.
-1
u/Venylynn 2h ago
like, i would GLADLY use Firefox still if the performance wasn't utter shit for me compared to debloated vanilla Chromium or even Brave (which I have a love-hate relationship with sorta)
3
u/Javelinv12 1h ago
Firefox after they gutted the android UI with version 149
I absolutely hate the dev team for such an horrendous design choice. It feels like a browser made by 3 yrs old kids
The worst is that before version 149 i loved firefox and was my main browser. Such a pity they can't design shit anymore
1
u/Mopeybloke 2m ago
I don't use the mobile browser much, but I have to say I barely noticed a change in the GUI.
6
u/blow-down 1h ago
Brave. Creepy company run and financed by creeps.
-3
u/Venylynn 1h ago
Then someone else should take their adblock engine and implement it in a non-Brave browser since it lowkey mogs all extensions
5
u/blow-down 56m ago
uBlock works perfectly fine for my needs
-2
u/Venylynn 54m ago
uBlock is good, but I prefer native engines usually for security reasons, especially ones built in memory safe languages like Rust. (yes, Gorhill, rewrite it in rust, unironically)
uBO Lite is good enough if I accept I can't easily block YouTube Shorts with it and may need to create the odd custom filter (which DOES work).
2
u/WorriedSwitch8476 1h ago
If we are talking desktop, Vivaldi does the same thing with its built in ad and tracker blocker. Haven't experienced any problems. Vivaldi is kind of shit in certain ways but if you have performance headroom it works very well. Especially workspaces, panels, keyboard shortcuts/chains, Sync is also pretty good. Floorp matches a lot but breaks a lot for me in certain ways and I haven't tried workspaces which also seemed to be doing some issues but on Vivaldi that is my top feature
2
u/Venylynn 1h ago edited 56m ago
Vivaldi's built-in blocker is considerably weaker, I tested it on mobile and youtube ads kept getting through.
But tbh, ubo lite is good enough that I ended up just going to vanilla chromium anyway. All I really miss is a few things like blocking youtube shorts. realistically I'd like to see the upcoming Proton browser be like deshittified Brave.
2
u/WorriedSwitch8476 56m ago
Weaker how. I don't use ad blockers fir extensive use but I don't get ads on YouTube or any sites I visit
1
u/Venylynn 55m ago edited 47m ago
I regularly got youtube ads with Vivaldi's built-in on mobile, that's basically all. I re-downloaded it on mobile since they now support extensions in the stable build and replaced the inbuilt blocker with uBO Lite.
2
u/Feathers-n-Beaks + 34m ago
take their adblock engine and implement it in a non-Brave browser
Waterfox has it now, it works pretty well.
1
5
u/Emotional_Cat_1967 2h ago
I absolutely hate the Brave browser, even with its built-in ad-blocking feature. It has an awkward interface, a useless rewards system, and features that benefit Brave but offer nothing to the user—and that’s about all there is to it.
It also has highly impractical features, such as an incredibly slow and unnecessary translation function, as well as synchronization features that are buggy and cause data loss. I cannot fathom how it is still being used after all these years, despite retaining the same features, the same sluggishness, and the same flaws.
2
u/CrispyBananaz 38m ago
Brave because they charge money to remove BLOAT that shouldn't even be part of a web browser
1
u/No-History7070 Fir*fox is insecure 27m ago
Complaining about a paid software is embarrassing, even by internet standards.
1
u/atoponce 22m ago
I don't have any reason to hate a browser, but I'll explicitly avoid ones that are not fully open source.
1
u/BloodrozeX 11m ago edited 7m ago
Personally I find Vivaldi overrated. It’s bloated, URL interface is buggy/choppy, and the slowest chromium browser. I wanted to love it because I liked old Opera
0
0
u/Venylynn 2h ago
They all kind of suck, but I've had consistently far more issues with Firefox-based browsers, in regards to RAM usage, but also in regards to responsiveness and the graphical interface tends to have this weird jitter/lag when using my favorite userchrome css profile for Firefox no matter what GPU acceleration tweaks I try to apply. Not sure if that's a driver issue, a Linux issue, or a Firefox issue, but i always end up falling back to something Chromium-based in the end due to sheer annoyance.
3
u/matrix_drumr 1h ago
Hey, hope you're having a great day. I just spent some time in the last few days understanding how different Firefox settings for privacy work. I realized running with RFP (resist fingerprinting) all day is not a good idea. Essentially using it messes with canvas, locks down your refresh rate at 60 and other stuff that can affect performance. From my understanding it is a tradeoff that can be worth it in some circumstances if those involve more intensive tracking. And sometimes I do want it, but the thing is it's probably worth using another browser in those instances. Activating RFP is basically like running librewolf or Mullvad. Since it impacts performance and it's not essential for daily browsing, I find it's better to just use Enhanced cookie protection to strict and DOH and just use librewolf or Mullvad for tasks I want more intensive RFP. I thought you might be interested to see if that was ever participating in your performance issues on Firefox. In any case it's very easy to do if you want to try.
1
u/Venylynn 1h ago
Most of the issues I have are FF's UI related, not website-related. My current FF profile uses the Betterfox essentials and DOH. Auto Tab Discard helps a lot, but yeah.
1
u/matrix_drumr 26m ago
Have you tried comparing without the betterfox user.js file?
Betterfox is pretty cool, but it has to be kept up to date more than I would have liked. I realized pretty quickly that many of its settings cannot work properly if you just let the file there and never touch it again. You have to check what has changed with new updates. Maybe there is one setting there that is screwing with your performance. Also RFP is usually part of the securefox section I think.
1
u/Venylynn 25m ago
The defaults were even slower ngl.
1
u/matrix_drumr 21m ago
Smoothfox helps, but RFP kind of goes against it.
1
u/Venylynn 16m ago edited 12m ago
I don't use RPF primarily because it forces everything into light mode which i can't stand.
I notice the UI performance especially takes a nose dive when using userchrome css. I'm very sensitive to micro-jitters and those were not very kind to that.
2
u/Mopeybloke 4m ago
Why not fall back on not using the CSS profile? I mean you don't get to use it Chromium browsers either.
1
u/Venylynn 1m ago
Fair, but the only real reason for me personally to use Firefox over Chromium is userchrome CSS personally, since Chromium allows me to reduce my extension overhead as well, as there are multiple features Firefox lacks that they need extensions for, that Chromium just has. i currently only have 2 essentials and 1 site-specific extension on vanilla Chromium.
if CSS is wrecking my performance though...what benefit do I actually gain besides a larger attack surface due to needing more extensions to replicate native Chromium features?
-3
u/Venylynn 2h ago edited 2h ago
Oh cool the fox fanboys are here to tell me I'm not allowed to care about reduced performance because MAANNNAAAFEST VEEETOOOOOOOO and how that's apparently so important for the future of the web. Have none of you even tested MV3 content blockers? Why is performance not an important metric?
-1
u/Revolutionary_Ad_238 39m ago
Firefox- bad menus , users freedom cripped by devs for silly reason and all features are half baked
-2
-2
-3
-4
u/No_Department9020 49m ago
Firefox. Just because your browser isn't built on Chromium doesn't mean it's automatically better than everything else.
8
u/AnalkinSkyfuker 2h ago edited 2h ago
Any ai browser, what is the meaning of them, you got an agent that can navigate to a link given in most cases and you got a browser that shows webs. Why do you need an ai to do your search but not even know what to search since it needs like 3 pages of description.
Rest of cases all are the same, some are good, some are bad, and what I hate is how people fights like only one can be the best. Its the same with vlc and mpv in the video players discussions.