Vivaldi browser and open-source
-
@Eggcorn , goals is the magic word, this is why an active and strong community is important, this determines whether the goals are in the interest of the company or those of the user community.
-
As a Linux user, I strongly prefer FOSS. I like Vivaldi, its customizability reminds of what Firefox used to be. I hope you will reconsider, otherwise I can see myself jumping a ship when I learn of some new/other FOSS browser that has features I want (e.g. installation of unsigned extensions, highly configurable UI and not backed [at least directly] by big tech).
-
@quiray , all this you can do in Vivaldi, you can use Extensions directly from GitHube, Sourceforge, etc., downloading the crx file and pulling it on the extensions page in developer mode, modding the UI more than in any other browser, no has relations with big companies.
Vivaldi isn't FOSS, true, but only in tradicional definition, the code is open for audit.
https://vivaldi.com/source/
https://github.com/ric2b/Vivaldi-browser
https://help.vivaldi.com/desktop/privacy/is-vivaldi-open-source/ -
@Catweazle said in Vivaldi browser and open-source:
no has relations with big companies
This isn't entirely true. Vivaldi is "sponsored" by e.g. Microsoft (to include Bing as a search engine) and other companies (for search engines or bookmarks). Of course, this doesn't mean that Vivaldi is exchanging any data with these companies, but there are still relations there.
-
@Komposten , true, Vivaldi makes money by adding some sponsor links by default, including MS Bing as a search engine and others, apart from his shop co merchandising. The team also has to pay bills and the sync servers are not free either.
I think it is preferable to trafficking with user data, as others do.See the Vivaldi business model https://vivaldi.com/blog/vivaldi-business-model/
-
@Catweazle said in Vivaldi browser and open-source:
I think it is preferable to trafficking with user data, as others do.
See the Vivaldi business model https://vivaldi.com/blog/vivaldi-business-model/Yup, while Vivaldi has relationships with other companies (including big ones like MS), those relationships are healthy for both Vivaldi and the userbase rather than the more common "healthy for the company, bad for the users".
-
@Komposten , especially if it depends on the user himself if he supports this relationship or not. He is free to delete or use the links and search engines that Vivaldi has by default.
-
@georg-lehmann
Well said, I think.
And:...
<1> In the end it would boil down to offering the user
<2> full freedom and customizability
<3> and that is the mission of Vivaldi.
...(3) ... and that would be worth being the new mission of Vivaldi!
I suppose, that was your last point?
-
@10Meisterbaelle , this is precisely what Vivaldi has done, the code is open for audit, but some parts are protected and not for free use.
-
Vivaldi can be in the official repos of many (if not most) Linux distros, in the non-free section. There has been a debate over that in Mageia (my favourite distro), and the only limit is finding someone with enough time to regularly package it. (If I find the time, I'll certainly be packaging it myself.)
To me, Vivaldi is the best browser available on Linux. The fact that it is freeware, but with most of its' components open source, isn't to me a major problem, even though I have a strong preference for open source software for widely used applications, like web browsers. To me, none of the open source alternatives come close to Vivaldi.
One factor, probably not commonly noted, is that like Opera before, you have excellent translations (at least into French), much better than the questionable translations in Chrome/Chromium, as well as Firefox.
Keep up the good work ! -
@andr909 , Vivaldi is not only in the repos of many distros, in FerenOS is currently the default browser.
I think that globalizing as simple freeware as closed sourced like Chrome or Edge, is not correct, since the source is open for audit but not all of it is free for use. It's like the NASA software, all of them is OpenSource, but some soft is restricted to goberment and agency use.
I think therefore that Vivaldi is OSS (not in the traditional manner. OSrestricted?), -
@Catweazle OSS? Vivaldi is not open source software, it’s proprietary. You keep mentioning it’s “open for audit,” but the truth is the code is minimized and obfuscated and it would be a very hard task to make sense of it. I would guess Vivaldi developers are working with a different version we don’t have access to.
-
@Catweazle Open-source means more than just "open for audit", at least if we're going by the Open Source Initiative's definition. So calling Vivaldi open-source is incorrect.
"Open for audit" is probably the best description of Vivaldi's state I've seen so far, though.
-
@Komposten , certainly Vivaldi is not OSS in the traditional definition, but it is not fair to classify it as simple closed source freeware such as Chrome, Edge or Opera (there codes are open for audit?), I consider it something in between, perhaps a new definition had to be created for a type of soft.
Some sources, especially with regard to the UI, are protected (for good reasons), but the general concept of Vivaldi conforms more to the philosophy of OSS than to that of proprietary freeware, it is something else. -
@Catweazle I just read the blog again, it’s explained very well. I don’t know why you have to add things to it. It is not open source and it doesn’t share the philosophy at all. But there is nothing wrong with providing or using proprietary software and you don’t have to wish Vivaldi into something it isn’t, to like it.
-
@luetage 5% of Vivaldi is closed source, 95% is OSS with different licenses.
"While there are arguments pointing in both directions, we are happy with what we can offer now – software that is free, including a large open-source license portion and with only a limited amount of closed, but moddable code.
We’ll stick to this for as long as we feel that protecting both the look and feel of Vivaldi and the identity of our brand is valuable. This is something we will keep reconsidering (we are secretly cheering for this but you didn’t hear us say that)."
Chrome and Edge the same?
-
In the business world,if we create a unique invention for example then we apply for a "patent" for the invention so as to protect it.
Copyright is another example which is most obvious in the film and literature industry for example.
If we transfer these 2 into the software world then i suppose we could call it closed source software.
I am fully aware myself that a small percentage of the vivaldi code is closed source but it seems it is with very good reason.
The interface is the "invention" and if this invention were not protected in some form then there would follow a flurry of copycats and the copycat browsers then would become immediate competitors and vivaldi would die a quick death.my 2 cents.
-
@Priest72 , it's exact this the reason of this 5% source "closed" but moddable by the user, but no for other companies. Because of this I think that comparing Vivaldy with other freeware proprietary closed source soft isn't fair and . Free Collaboration Ware, or somthing like this? In addition to greatly slowing down acceptance in many Linux communities, many ardent defenders of FOSS by fire and sword. (Freeware like Chrome? never, no go).
I see it a lot, when I present Vivaldi in some Social Networks in the comments of Linux user. -
@Catweazle said in Vivaldi browser and open-source:
Chrome and Edge the same?
Yes. And you should add Opera to that list. A large portion open source, since Chromium is open source and all browsers use the Blink engine code. Then individual additions, modifications to the used code are open source, since it’s forced by the license. Then a heap of additional third party open source code, work from others again, maybe with open source changes again (forced) and the rest proprietary. It should also be noted that Google, Microsoft and Opera are actively contributing to Blink development.
I’m not sure about the 5% and I have no clue where you are taking this number from, but I think pretty much all code that isn’t based on open source software is proprietary and closed source in Vivaldi, just like in Edge and Chrome and Opera. The well known open source Chromium browsers are Chromium itself and Brave.
And yes, we can mod Vivaldi, that’s the circumstance setting it apart. That’s due to the electron‐like implementation of the UI. But we normally don’t change application files, we are adding custom code to it.
-
Vivaldi also contains third-party code. Licenses for this can be found in the source package and in the installed browser by navigating to vivaldi://credits.
Of the three layers, only the UI layer is closed-source. This means that roughly 92% of the browser’s code is open-source coming from Chromium, 3% is open-source coming from us and only 5% is our UI closed-source code.
https://vivaldi.com/blog/vivaldi-browser-open-source/
Vivaldi has a lot of more features as Chrome, but Chrome uses a lot of more RAM. Both are build on Chromium and Blink, but apart of this Chrome has a lot of telemetries which track the user and a lot of codes nobody know what. It isn't the same.