Hmmm...they say Brave is faster!



  • Well, for my purposes, Vivaldi is blazingly fast enough! I am sure I will not notice the difference. But, I do notice the plethora of options available in Vivaldi - talk about a user's dream! You can tweak almost anything in Vivaldi! Easier than taking the trash out!

    Now, as per the following article, maybe the Vivaldi developers can take away points to use in future improvements?

    https://techwiser.com/brave-vs-vivaldi/



  • @musicollector
    Hi, it only start faster, if you enable add and tracker blocking Vivaldi is faster on my system. I checked with Page load time 2.0.0 extension.
    Disable java script is a fancy idea, some pages are loading in 1/100 second but you can see anything on that page. jester
    Tested with Brave V1.9.72

    Cheers, mib


  • Ambassador

    @musicollector I don't know why they say that Brave is better regarding privacy. Speed has more to do with your broadband connection than the browser that you use. I cannot tell the difference when it comes to a few hundred milliseconds.



  • @Pesala
    You are right, it is only 2-3 1/10 of a second but you can tell.
    Btw. if one use WhatsApp he/she has given up privacy anyway. 🙂

    Cheers, mib
    EDIT: ... and uninstall it.


  • Ambassador

    I think that this of the benchmark comparisons are quite useless, the difference that there can be in modern browsers is minimal, mostly invisible to the user.
    Possibly Brave is a tenth of seconds
    faster than Vivaldi, but the question is in which browser I can work faster, and at this point Vivaldi is incomparable.



  • @Catweazle
    I would add:
    At some point we need to take a stand. Choosing the browser is not a matter of "which is faster" but "which is in my interest as user" and "which is healthier for the Internet". I would say it is a matter of "philosophy" or "politics" in the original sense, more than of "technicalities". I would give away LOTS of things to get Vivaldi out of Google's obliged embrace and back to the old days of the completely independent browser.


  • Ambassador

    @JohnConnorBear, in this I completely agree, Vivaldi deserves to be independent as much as possible from Chrome, since I consider that in case it is an anachronism to depend on a Chrome repository, instead of having your own as other browsers have, not only to avoid that The user can install extensions that are not only redundant for Vivaldi, but also dangerous, because Google, as it has shown in the past, is not very efficient at filtering extensions with misleading and malicious content.
    The alternative is to download extensions from Github, since Vivaldi supports installing extensions by dragging the crx files to the extensions page.
    For many advantages that Chromium has, this also creates a dependency on this platform, maintained by the competition. Although at this point I find it difficult to change something, since it is practically impossible for a small team to rebuild Vivaldi from scratch on their own platform.

    https://awesomeopensource.com/projects/chrome-extension



  • @Catweazle
    I guess there is a little misunderstanding. Extensions or "apps" come from Google Store because developers want to get in contact with as many users as possible and that is the place where most people go. If Vivaldi had its own separate "store" for extensions, Vivaldi should convince developers to publish their work over there. This in the case those were a curated selection of exactly the same extensions as Google's. Much worse if they were different, in that case Vivaldi should convince developers not only to publish in two different places but to develop and maintain two different versions of their software.
    Chromium is a different issue. There isn't anything wrong about developing Vivaldi on top of it besides the fact that Google makes all the decisions about the core features of the browser and Google isn't exactly "nice", like all the mega-corporations. Like I said elsewhere the fact that Chromium is Open Source is a sort of bait because you could look at the code but everybody knows it is not worth to make changes "downstream", because you need to port those changes forward for any update and at some point you need to fork the code when some changes "upstream" remove the code you need to make your changes work.

    Lets put it in another way: having a separate "store" for extensions is difficult but possible.
    Ignoring changes like Manifest v.3 in Chromium code base means to fork then it is pretty much impossible for anybody.

    In fact I was wondering what are the technical limitations of Vivaldi "blocker", how many of the "inspect and take action" features of current extensions could be ported. If any.


  • Ambassador

    @JohnConnorBear , Developers certainly want to put their extensions expose to the maximum of users, but the problem is that the Chrome Store does not offer much guarantee that the extensions in the Store are also safe, apart from that, if I go through the Store, a large part of the extensions are redundant for Vivaldi and some even incompatible.
    I think that it cannot be so complicated to bring together the recommended extensions and OpenSource, to create our own repository with those that can best be included in Vivaldi.
    The ideal would naturally be that Vivaldi in the future can completely do without using extensions, by including everything necessary in its own functions. But until then some extensions are still necessary.



  • @Catweazle
    Sorry but I think you confuse motivations for the "user" and motivations for the developer.

    You are right, I as "user" would prefer to install extensions from Vivaldi "store" instead of Google, if I am told Vivaldi "hand picks" good and useful extensions and ideally checks on updates and code changes. Who would not like it?

    But if I was a developer, unless I want to take a stand and actively support Vivaldi, I would not care much of Vivaldi "store" because of the limited audience. People using Vivaldi could be smarter but they are fewer, I don't care much if dumb people who use Chrome (a sort of spyware) get "infected" by rogue extensions from the same "store" until they also install mine and then I crunch numbers.

    Currently I am using Vivaldi without extensions but I do miss uBlock Origin in advanced mode.


  • Banned

    I have no issue with Vivaldi's speed / performance, what I do have a issue with is Brave claiming it is the most privacy oriented browser while allowing certain ads through their adblocker. You can be privacy oriented and still allow ads that can possibly track the enduser.



  • @Catweazle said in Hmmm...they say Brave is faster!:

    I think that it cannot be so complicated to bring together the recommended extensions and OpenSource, to create our own repository with those that can best be included in Vivaldi.

    It is the extension developers who decide which "store" they will publish to; not the browser makers.
    So Vivaldi would not "decide" which extensions to include in their own store.

    However, they could (if they had the resources), publish a list of "incompatible"/"untrusted" extensions when used in Vivaldi - just not the extensions themselves.



  • @TbGbe
    Speaking of "open source" software, the idea of "deciding" where to publish the said software is a grey area.
    You could gently ask the developer if he could add his/her software to your "store" or you could just grab the software and place it on your store yourself without asking, in that case you need to do the same for updates. Maybe it is even possible to automate the process of grabbing from one place and put on your store. Until you don't make any changes on the software, you should be fine and the developer should not complain for having his/her software mirrored elsewhere.

    What changes everything is when your own store requires some changes in the software, then you either fork the extension or the developer must agree to maintain it.


  • Ambassador

    @JohnConnorBear , Don't get me wrong either, I understand that a developer can publish their soft where most users expect and this is the Chrome Store, but this can be valid in the case of soft commercial or proprietary, in the case of OpenSource in most cases this point is not so important and can be on Github or on any other page of its own, such as the one I put in the message previous. Apart from publishing in a supposed Vivaldi Store it does not prevent you from also doing it in the Chrome Store. I add that a malicious developer does not deserve to be promoted anywhere and the Chrome Store has already shown that it doesn't care too much about this point.



  • @Catweazle You want your extensions to appear in the browser you use. You don’t put an extension on chrome web store because you use Firefox. Of course you can make an effort and support more platforms and many people do, but there will always be the browser you actually develop for. I’m sure we’d have quite the amount of extensions over time, if Vivaldi would release their own store, but it wouldn’t be able to stand up to chrome web store. Just take a look at the Opera add-ons site for a peek into the future:

    The main advantage is dedicated apis that allow extensions to take advantage of unique browser features. Then you get a heavy amount of 100% ported extensions, that you could as well install from chrome web store. The worst part is the amount of work actual employees have to put into reviewing extension code, which in turn would make releasing on a Vivaldi owned platform probably somewhat frustrating.



  • @luetage
    I do not understand.
    What are the "unique features" Vivaldi can expose to extensions? I can't think of any. Extensions like uBlock rely on Chromium code and to add "unique features" in that area you need to fork the whole code base and then maintain it with the same release cycle as Google, otherwise you fall behind and become irrelevant.

    Vivaldi improves "usability" by exposing more settings to the user but once Google decides to deprecate some API and to introduce some new one, Vivaldi can only deal with it. There can't be any "feature" to take advantage of for extensions.

    Current "blocker" on Vivaldi is a strange thing that I can explain only with the need to provide some content filtering capability to Vivaldi users knowing that Google is going to kill the well known extensions with changes of Manifest v.3. Vivaldi did not say "we are keeping the old API" like Mozilla could do if they wanted and Vivaldi did not say "we are adding a different new API than Chromium". Instead with the built-in blocker they said "sorry guys, the game is over" for those extensions but here is something that you can use instead".

    Reviewing extension code is the last of the problems we are discussing here.



  • @JohnConnorBear Well, the most basic example is the sidebar. Vivaldi could create an api allowing developers to create extensions making use of it natively.



  • @luetage
    I guess we are speaking of different things.
    Yes, Vivaldi makes use of a different GUI than Chromium, I haven't studied it but I guess it is made with some sort of JS for the "dynamics", some sort of markup for the "statics" and CSS for formatting. So Yes, Vivaldi can also handle the GUI for extensions in a different way than Chromium.

    But to get input and output and display stuff you need to access the data from and into the inside of the browser. That access is granted by code made by Google, not Vivaldi. Same of course goes for the processing of ANY content that comes from the Internet, that is made by Google code, not Vivaldi.

    I was saying of changes in extensions that filter content like uBlock. What Google says is the current API that allows extensions to look at connections and to instruct the browser on what action to take, can be exploited by rogue extensions, so they want to change the whole mechanism so that the extension publish some "policy" in advance about what to do with connections as "general rule", then the logic inside the browser decides if the actions "suggested" by the extensions are to be performed or not, according to some "rules" like, I don't know, impact on performance, disruption of site functionalities, etc.
    Please note that, besides the browser being in control of what happens despite what the extension "suggests", what gets totally removed is the ability for the "user" to observe what happens and to configure custom actions, in other worlds, to decide what the browser does not does not.

    Now, look at Vivaldi "blocker", you can input the lists and you can activate or deactivate the blocking.



  • @JohnConnorBear Look, you’re talking about blockers, I was talking about the pros and cons of a dedicated Vivaldi extensions store. I don’t have my mind revolving around adblocking right now, but from what I can recall Vivaldi let us know that they would evaluate possible alternative solutions once manifest version 3 is fully worked out, presented and in testing. Sit back and sip some rum is my general advice ^^



  • @luetage
    Thanks for reminding me I cannot do nothing about Chromium and Vivaldi, I will sit and wait. Meanwhile I cannot see what the benefit of a dedicated extension store would be when there isn't any way to develop dedicated extensions for Vivaldi that are any different of better than those for Chromium.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.