>* It adds to web engine monoculture.
Doesn't Firefox and it's derivatives contribute to that the most in GNU/Linux
distributions? Not defending anything Google btw, fuckem.
> * It's not free software.
Can you please link to some proof of this (such a file with a non-free
or missing license)? I have heard the claim that Chromium has files
with unclear licensing, but when I looked into it I was unable to find a
current example of such a file.
> Why do people "need"
On 1/12/20 8:59 PM, trisquel-users-requ...@listas.trisquel.info wrote:
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:14:51 +0100 (CET)
> From: airwa...@keemail.me
> To: trisquel-users@listas.trisquel.info
> Subject: Re: [Trisquel-users] I messed up trying to install Brave
> Sorry for hijacking this thread but wouldn't Ungoogled Chromium be a
> great addition for future Trisquel releases? I think most of the
> people that install Brave on Linux distros do so because they need a
> chromium-based browser. (for certain addons most likely?) Ungoogled
> Chromium would be
That worked, thank you!
Sorry for hijacking this thread but wouldn't Ungoogled Chromium be a great
addition for future Trisquel releases? I think most of the people that
install Brave on Linux distros do so because they need a chromium-based
browser. (for certain addons most likely?) Ungoogled Chromium would be
> I am also interested in Brave. Wikipedia says it is licensed
> under the Mozilla Public License, which I understand qualifies as
> a Libre Software License. Why do you say Brave is proprietary?
The binaries they distribute are proprietary.[1] You need to compile
the browser
On 1/11/20 9:52 AM, xliang9...@live.cn wrote:
> Chromium is still in Debian's main repository. Maybe Debian's guidelines
> are looser than FSF's.
They are.
If I recall correctly isn't Brave browser the one that mines cryptocurrency
using your tabs? I don't think that anything proprietary should be used but
especially not something like that.
Chromium is still in Debian's main repository. Maybe Debian's guidelines are
looser than FSF's.
On 1/11/20 8:20 AM, Ignacio Agulló wrote:
> I am also interested in Brave. Wikipedia says it is licensed under
> the Mozilla Public License, which I understand qualifies as a Libre
> Software License. Why do you say Brave is proprietary?
Maybe I rejected it because it is based on Chromium
On 11/01/20 13:43, Caleb Herbert wrote:
> Brave is proprietary. Though you as a free individual can install
> Microsoft Edge on Trisquel, it would be irresponsible of us and
> against the project rules to show you how to do it.
I am also interested in Brave. Wikipedia says it is licensed
On 1/11/20 3:15 AM, luk...@protonmail.com wrote:
> I was attempting to install Brave Browser on Trisquel using the first
> set of instructions found here:
Brave is proprietary. Though you as a free individual can install
Microsoft Edge on Trisquel, it would be irresponsible of us and against
the
As suggested by the error message, just simply delete the file(s)
/etc/apt/sources.list.d/*
sudo rm /etc/apt/sources.list.d/*
I was attempting to install Brave Browser on Trisquel using the first set of
instructions found here:
Not only was I unsuccessful, but I'm unable to get any system updates and
Package Manager displays the following message:
E: Malformed entry 1 in list file
15 matches
Mail list logo
