Hacker News Reader

Comment by square_usual | Hacker News Reader

You can use Brave as your Chromium-based browser. It blocks ads natively, and I've not yet run into a site that required Chrome that didn't work on Brave.

View on HN

Suggesting a browser because it has adblock preinstalled is like recommending a specific Linux distribution because it comes with LibreOffice out of the box: it doesn't matter for anyone who can click 2-3 buttons.

What matters to me is the part I can't influence that easily, and I simply prefer Firefox because it's not based on Chrome. Not something many browser developers can say nowadays.

But if you need Chrome for certain sites that only support Chrome, then giving Chrome the middle finger by using a non-Chrome Chrome seems like the best of two evils. I realize that sites only supporting Chrome is terrible and shouldn't be a thing, but sometimes it really can't be avoided.

I say this as someone who uses 99% Firefox, 1% Chrome... I had never thought about this point I'm making before.

How sure are we that Brave will not break also with these new changes? And also, how sure are we that Chromium isn't secretly tracking users already? I don't have time to read the source, and don't trust that many people that say it's all a-okay.

It's also worth mentioning that Brave's adblock engine is native (written in Rust), not a Javascript-based engine like uBlock [0]

[0] https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust

Thanks for the tip. I've seen some FUD around Brave and their browser but even if true they are still better than where Google is going.

Whut? Sites require chrome?

Sadly, there are a number of websites that assume that Chrome is the only web browser and do not work properly in other browsers.

The web version of T-Mobile Digits is one I can think of off the top of my head.

For the entire history of the internet, there have been sites that only work properly with the dominate browser, starting with Netscape and then, famously, IE6.

I'm always confused when people imply this isn't the case or start demanding evidence. I'm bemused when they are surprised.

I intellectually know this to be true, but I have to take it on faith.

I've never been a Chrome user, and I honestly don't remember ever hitting a website in the last 10 years or so that didn't work for me.

So you do not show us site with "this site working only with chrome"

In Netscape/ie times WWW was other than nowadays, so your analogy is not correct

Reply on news.ycombinator.com