Vivaldi 8.3 for Desktop: make bad ads sad(vivaldi.com)
30 pointsby speckx3 hours ago11 comments
  • doodlesdevan hour ago
    To anyone that doesn't know: Vivaldi's code is partially closed source [0]. It's not much better than Google Chrome on that regard.

    [0]: https://vivaldi.com/blog/technology/why-isnt-vivaldi-browser...

    • Buxato30 minutes ago
      If I don't remember bad its just the GUI part, anyway for me is fundamental in my workflow due to its usabillity and productivity improvements.
      • margalabargala27 minutes ago
        They say it's just the GUI.

        Shame there's no way to check something else isn't included too.

    • RunSet42 minutes ago
      For those interested in a GPL-licensed browser from Norway:

      https://nordstjernen.org/index.html

      • vrganj6 minutes ago
        Is it just me or is it a bit sad that even GPL'd software has websites that are full of Claudisms these days?

        Like have some pride when showing off your project. Write a few sentences. Why should I give a shit about your project when you don't even care enough to describe it in your own words?

  • grishka5 minutes ago
    I'm still on 8.0 for the time being since it's the last version that still supports MV2 extensions.
  • hobo_mark27 minutes ago
    For me Vivaldi on Linux has a 50% probability of freezing whenever I use Ctrl+F and type some text I am looking for, requiring killing and restarting the process. It's been the case for years but I keep putting up with it because I can't live without side panels. No issues on Windows and MacOS.

    HN hivemind, any ideas why?

  • kayart_devan hour ago
    It's better than nothing but it's still far behind uBlock Origin or even the Brave's built-in ad blocker. Their decision to stop supporting uBlock Origin made me drop it as my alternative browser.
  • toddmoreyan hour ago
    I’ve had a really good experience with Vivaldi as a replacement for the Arc browser.

    It really is nice to have a browser from a company whose incentives seem to be for the actual users.

    • leofree13 minutes ago
      How does it hold up with many tabs opened VS chrome?
  • skeledrewan hour ago
    This reminds me I have to see what's up with my install. Tried running earlier and got a message that it's secure store is busted, and have options to switch profile or continue and lose data, and all profiles are similarly broken. Luckily I don't keep much in it beyond sites like GMail and anything else not very Firefox friendly. Hoping this doesn't mean I lose access to my Google account as it's only logged in there.
    • jttnran hour ago
      I had the same thing when I switched from Gnome to Niri. In the end I got it fixed somehow, but I don't remember the exact details.

      It was about how the default keyring was called, and that the name of the keyring ia actually case sensitive.

  • andyfilms1an hour ago
    I have a question. My ISP, allegedly, knows what websites I go to. So why can't I pay my ISP an optional $20 a month that gets evenly distributed directly to those websites, in exchange for an ad-free web experience?

    Surely I'm not creating much more than $20 in ad revenue in total per month, right? Can't we just cut out the middleman and all walk away happy?

    • WarmWashan hour ago
      People have been trying stuff like this for almost 20 years now.

      The core problem is that while people hold up that ads are the problem, the actual problem is that people like free stuff with no strings attached, i.e. have your cake (the content) and eat it too (nothing traded for it).

      So when you present people an alternate way to compensate creators directly, they overwhelmingly just stick with ad blocking. There is a long case file of fools taking the internet at their word that "I want to give but the ads are so bad I can't!". They don't want to give lol

      • GrantMoyer19 minutes ago
        The problem is that the choice isn't seeing ads v.s. paying for the content. Instead, the choice is seeing ads v.s. overpaying for the content, then seeing ads anyway when the service decides to indroduce ads back to the paid subscription. By overpaying, I mean compared to what the service itself values its content at when it serves it for free with ads.

        How many people would sign up for a 15$ per month subscription to read one article with no ads? How many would pay 1¢ once to read the article with no ads? How many would sign up for one 15$ per month subscription to see no ads anywhere?

        I realise we don't have the infrastructure to make high volume 1¢ payments, and probably not for lack of trying, but I just don't think the core problem is that people only want stuff for 0¢ and not almost 0¢.

      • ndriscoll16 minutes ago
        The problem is I don't want surveillance and I don't want to incentivize trying to distract me (the "attention economy"). "Creators" just don't want to acknowledge that much of their "content" has zero or negative value to most people, and instead claim that everyone just wants free stuff. No, I want most of these "creators" to stop creating.
      • ggsp24 minutes ago
        > free stuff with no strings attached

        I'm aware I'm preaching to the choir here on HN, but boy are there strings...

      • functionmousean hour ago
        I don't think that's the case. I think the problem is that the sort of market behavior that would drive a company to run invasive ads in the first place betrays its fundamental lack of respect for its users. I want to pay for stuff. And I have tried. Even in doing so, I've found piracy is still often the superior service to using what I'm actually paying for.
        • andyfilms140 minutes ago
          Exactly. I'm not opposed to paying a few bucks a month to a website I visit a lot, but that adds up. At some point a "Netflix for Adblocking" starts to make sense.
    • bastawhizan hour ago
      I'm not sure why your ISP should be involved. Ideally they don't know what sites you're visiting. Your browser knows, though. And what you're describing is kind of what Brave tried to do with BAT (and kind of failed at).
    • conceptionan hour ago
      How many websites do you go to a month? Hundreds? Thousands? And you want the ISP to handle the payment processing out to them? Many probably international? And each ISP doing this on their own?
      • andyfilms141 minutes ago
        Sure, why not? They're billion dollar corporations, they can handle some basic payment processing. If it creates a genuinely better user experience, it will increase customer loyalty and make them money in the long run.
        • ndriscoll6 minutes ago
          I'd rather my ISP and ad networks have harsh criminal penalties with prison time for management, engineers, and everyone else involved for tracking what sites I visit. That would be a genuinely better experience.
      • margalabargala25 minutes ago
        Spotify figured it out.
    • rpastuszakan hour ago
      Speaking as someone who managed to get uncle Murdoch to sponsor writing an adblocker/payment tool similar to yours (while I was working at an adtech business), but then got stalled by the publishers (who on avg. hated ads), specifically the direct supply sales people (who tend to have louder voices in those companies, have mortgages to pay) -- the issue is systemic.

      ISPs are already selling your data to a bunch of data brokers, I don't think ad spend is the only goal there.

    • pwaglandan hour ago
      Well, your ISP likely _doesn't_ know which sites you are going to.

      In the old days, they'd run proxies, but with SSL, they no longer know where they are going, only that they are, for example, going to an AWS or GCP site.

      • saagarjhaan hour ago
        SSL (and most DNS queries) expose the hostname
        • AlotOfReadingan hour ago
          Unless ECH and DoH are enabled, which I believe has been the default on Chrome and Firefox for a few years now.
    • mminer237an hour ago
      Calculating shares is basically impossible from DNS records and easily abusable.

      That is basically the whole premise of the Brave browser though.

  • HackerThemAll29 minutes ago
    Can't you just use Firefox instead of that disguised Chrome equipped with stuff you get from Firefox Addon page?
  • FLeXMurphy23 minutes ago
    As a Libre Wolf user I feel like the battle against ads is a losing one, but I'm glad there are folks out there working on this.
  • jttnr29 minutes ago
    [dead]
  • jerrygoyal18 minutes ago
    [dead]