I don't like what I'm reading.
"- it should be possible to add-on other well designed and performant modules
(example (((((((((but not necessarily))))))))), HTTPS monitor/enforce,
adblocker monitor/enforce and so on)"
"I am not entirely clear what it is specifically at the heart of Firefox that
has driven Icecat to exist, other than perhaps it has some undesirable things
creeping into or existing in it. "
people absolutely hate how browsers like "normie firefox" and google chrome
step on and crush the freedom and privacy of good people, just like the windows
10 operating system from microsoft.
the THOUSANDS of people that have switched over to GNU/LINUX and GNU icecat as
a browser is a direct answer to those who oppose freedom and privacy and we
shouldn't EVER compromise on what makes it great. also voted for Donald Trump
because those who work for the system seem to strongly dislike him. people,
don't get rid of GNU icecat's excellent addons like "spyblock". shills want to
remove these from GNU icecat because they are the only simple and pure
untainted uncorrupted addblockers left ANYWHERE.
may the force be with you all.
--
Securely sent with Tutanota. Claim your encrypted mailbox today!
https://tutanota.com
27. Aug 2016 04:14 by [email protected]:
> Hello and good day to all reading this debate
>
> From my perspective and without insinuating Icecat, Firefox, or any other
> software does or does not provide these things, I would see the requirement
> of the 'libre' browser like this:
>
> - the browser (Icecat in this case) should be performant and do its one job
> [of browsing] extremely well meeting any standards as required
> - the browser should be secure; as in bug/security-hole free and be part of a
> maintenance effort to ensure such
> - in line with the first requirement [listed above] the browser should be
> made available clean of any other 'addons', hidden marketing/feedback stuff
> etc
> - it should be possible to add-on other well designed and performant modules
> (example but not necessarily, HTTPS monitor/enforce, adblocker
> monitor/enforce and so on)
>
> I am not entirely clear what it is specifically at the heart of Firefox that
> has driven Icecat to exist, other than perhaps it has some undesirable things
> creeping into or existing in it.
>
> It would seem a good base to take Firefox and 'clean it up' (of any
> legitimate concerns and other code that stop it meeting the opinion
> requirements above) to leave a clean and performant browser; then to ensure
> some quality addons, that do not intrinsically need to be part of the core
> code, for providing additional requirements security and 'lock-down' are made
> available as a choice to employ.
>
> It is all about instruction and making it easy, for users to add on what they
> need to the browser and not necessarily doing the job for them by building it
> in. That is how I see it.
>
> From saying all the above, I suppose I am more in line with having a good
> base line browser, clear and stripped down with regard to inbuilt
> functionality which can be provided better (and through choice) by
> addons/modules.
>
> I am presuming Firefox is a good base for Icecat to be the above 'vision' (as
> i see it as a user), but if it is not any more and the effort to 'clean it
> up' from concerns (if that is what Icecat has intended) is now not feasible,
> then I am not sure what the future for Icecat is. I do not believe Icecat
> should come with things built in, that can be added as choice. It does not
> detract from being able to claim the browser is 'libre' or whatever the claim
> is that is trying to be met.
>
> Long ago, I thought the intention of Firefox was to be all the things
> discussed above and that Icecat tries to/does do - what happened if anything
> and why!
>
> Thank you for allowing me to share my observation and opinion.
> Peace and goodwill to all.
> Habs
>
>
>
> On 27 August 2016 at 00:32, <> [email protected]> > wrote:
>
>> >> I get what you mean, but alot of people out there aren't
>> necessarily idiots, but rather they don't have a specialty in technology.
>> many people, even many who use free software rather have a simple
>> firefox/icecat browser that just comes with the evil things removed and some
>> good things added to protect them so that they have to do the minimal amount
>> of set up to just get it working.
>>
>> if it doesn't "just werk" many people just throw it right in the trash and
>> go to an easier option. what's so great about icecat is that it IS that
>> easier option and it's also better for security than a normal firefox
>> browser. take away the benefit to using it and it's just some boring browser
>> that does nothing special at all.
>>
>> I'm absolutely not in any way at all suggesting we take away the choice or
>> freedom from the user, but if all the good things about icecat are removed
>> and most smart people (who aren't good in tech) have to spend 10 million
>> frustrating headache hours pounding their head into their computer screen
>> searching for answers on dead forums with spiderwebs in the corners and
>> those weird mods who delete topics with answers to obsucure questions and
>> failing to find any answers and desperately trying to add those good things
>> back into firefox, they will simply just stop using icecat out of
>> frustration.
>>
>> smart people who can't figure out tech will just scream and cry at their
>> computer screens in frustration as the very last FOSS minimalistic browser
>> with some security features in existance becomes the "generic do-nothing
>> browser" that already exists all over the internet in many different
>> redundant and boring forms. there are loads of browsers out there already
>> that do "nothing but browse" so why should we de-specialize icecat? why make
>> it so normal that it's not worth using it?
>>
>> I love the fact that icecat is very minimalistic, but I'm very happy that it
>> comes what it comes with and many others are too. we shouldn't bloat icecat
>> to death because look at what happened to mainstream firefox, but we
>> shouldn't gut it to death until its a hollow shell that does nothing.
>>
>> --
>> Securely sent with Tutanota. Claim your encrypted mailbox today!
>> https://tutanota.com
>>
>> 20. Aug 2016 16:11 by >> [email protected]>> :
>>
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 18:50:14 +0100 (BST)
>>> <>>> [email protected]>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> sounds really nice, but why would we want to pass along such strongly
>>>> minimalistic
>>>> "un-de-freedomed" browsers along to the normal people specifically without
>>>> added security features? this basically lands them back right where they
>>>> started since they are immediately washed clean and then re-exposed to the
>>>> filth of the world again. we have to help them but "here don't go alone,
>>>> take this!" without security- without defense there is nothing worth
>>>> defending.
>>>
>>> I don't quite understand. A libre web browser does give people a
>>> browser which does not download proprietary plugins without asking nor
>>> suggest to install non-free Addons. Privacy aware search engines are
>>> enabled by default. Why would this lead people back "to the
>>> filth"? Users of free software are not stupid.
>>>
>>> I strongly believe that people must be offered complete free/libre
>>> software. But we don't have to lecture them like children what the can
>>> and can't do. This attitude will provoke contradiction. We can suggest
>>> and recommend - but the choice should be freely made by the user.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Henry
>>
>> --
>> http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
>>
>>
>
>
--
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
