>Current state of SJWfox

If random kitsch on the default homepage is all that's wrong with Firefox I guess it's aged better than I thought

File: 1481355516710.jpg (326KB, 1312x1402px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 1312x1402px

>>59137807
>If random kitsch on the default homepage is all that's wrong with Firefox I guess it's aged better than I thought

>>59137839
>internet for people, not profit
wtf!!!! how can they!!! they must datamine their users and sell it to ad companies!!! wtf mozilla!!!

>stand up for encryption
wtf!!! pedophiles!!! terrorists!!!

>>59138737
>buttmad SJW faggot is mad
stay mad and go back to sucking BBC like a good Mozilla goy.

File: 1418228156215.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>59138737

>>59137783
Maybe you should use bookmarks.

Microsoft Edge doesn't have this problem

File: rekt.webm (477KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 320x320px

>>59138799
hows this webm look in your browser?

>>59137783
Google is also an "SJW" /pol/. They have had similar links to transgender activism on their homepage. They also celebrate diversity.

Opera is also an "SJW" /pol/. They have a diversity project.

Yahoo is also an "SJW" /pol/. Look it up.

Most FOSS projects are also "SJW" /pol/. Including your privacy respecting search engines. Why? because these projects stand up for freedom.

>BOO FUCKING HOO MOMMY I CAN'T JUDGE THE FUCKING SOFTWARE BY ITS QUALITY, IT HAS TO RESPECT MY STORMFAGGOT IDEOLOGY OR ELSE I'M GOING TO FUCKING DRINK MY OWN PISS, DROWN MYSELF IN SEMEN, AND LITERALLY EAT MY OWN SHIT (And my dogs), LMAO

>>59138852
got the original without the explosion?
>this is the original xd
ok
but seriously original pls

>>59138852
Likes it's filtered. Kill yourself.

>>59137783
This is actually a pretty useful feature.
But i don't see the SJW angle, sorry OP.

ive never had tabb problems and i use a pi

i have 14+ tabs open and i even it open over night

people who complain about firefox tabs use windows

>>59139088
This desu, I've seen a lot of these "Mozilla are cuck sjws" threads but this one truly has me confused

>>59139105
ive been using firefox over 7 years and ive never had it even crash a single time

i just turn off cookies and caching and only have it write to the HD if im downloading a file

>>59139134
this includes x86-64 and ARM versions

>>59137783

its just a starwars reference, what makes this SJW? "hate ain't great" triggers you that much?

File: websites.png (82KB, 1140x374px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1140x374px

>>59139165

>>59137783
>giving a shit about something tiny as a snippet on the default home page

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought this was /g/, where all the kool-kids has their own custom home page.

>>59139188

it is definitely geek pandering, but geek pandering != SJW

>>59139222
Its a common trait of SJWs though, and Mozilla has been proven to be SJWs anyway
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2430048/google-and-mozilla-baulk-at-bro-extension-because-feminism

File: Spock.jpg (117KB, 910x1048px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 910x1048px

>>59139274
>this amount of circular logic
Just because some of them do stupid shit doesn't mean you get to label everything they do as stupid.

That's not how it works.

File: 1488086740880.jpg (105KB, 720x805px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 720x805px

>>59139301
Mozilla dev detected

>>59139301
Not the guy you're replying to, but Firefox's "message of the days" are often retarded faux-geek trash. It's unrelated to the SJW issue other than the fact that faux-geek trash spouters are an order of magnitude more likely to ask you to refer to them as "xir"

File: CvGBZbfVYAAfsSC.jpg (48KB, 960x733px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 960x733px

>>59139319

>>59139188
I sincerely hate this shit so fucking much.

>>59138737
I guess you never heard of corporate sponsors or donators huh? I really hope this was bait.

File: powerplant-operator.jpg (36KB, 623x336px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 623x336px

>can't attack the actual feature that's advertised because it's okay
>attack the form of the advertisement instead
>doesn't see the irony of calling them SJW then
>mfw

File: 301px-NuMale-feminism.jpg (28KB, 301x321px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 301x321px

>>59139335
Why does everything have to be an argument?
I called you a nu-male Mozilla dev and you didn't deny it

>>59139367
I don't have to.
This is an anonymous belgian dessin animé BBS. Address my points or stay triggered.

uarghh... the ess... jay... duoubleyuuussss.... ujarghhh

>>59139387
I agree with you and I think >>59139367 is annoying and needs to get out of the gene pool.

>>59138783
dumb frogposter

>>59139387
What points? That you can't label all of Mozilla as dumb because you decided to make that notification and don't want anyone else to take the blame because you're a beta?
>>59139414
You're not fooling anyone. At least I'm still in the gene pool

File: fs_buttmad__legacy_of_fukune_and_truebika__s_rage_by_spyisaspy12-d57z1co.jpg (43KB, 434x600px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 434x600px

>>59139445

Whats wrong with Firefox? I don't know any other browser that is as functional as is Firefox but still isn't as anti-privacy as Chrome/IE

File: projecting.jpg (14KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 300x300px

>>59139470

>>59139478
Waterfox or Ungoogled-chromium

>>59139478
Nothing except the new addon API kerfuffle.
OP is just mad his bait isn't working.

>>59139490
Apparantly waterfox is suppose to be firefox but just faster?
Pulled this from wikipedia just now
>32-bit Firefox outperformed 64-bit Waterfox in Peacekeeper browser benchmark tests run by TechRepublic in 2012,[4] and 64-bit Waterfox slightly outperformed 32-bit Firefox in tests run by Softpedia in 2014.[5] However, in 2016 64-bit Waterfox performed worse than 64-bit Mozilla Firefox in the Kraken, SunSpider, JetStream, and Octane 2.0 benchmarks.[6]
>Benchmarks were once available on the developers website but have since been removed.[7]
Doesn't sound fast to me
Also you can't "ungoogle" chromium, it will still keep in touch with google servers.

>>59139546
https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium
They've removed all traces to there servers and ones they couldn't remove they added garbage to the end of so it couldn't connect

>>59139546
What is https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium then?

File: 1482056283221.png (321KB, 372x539px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 372x539px

>>59137783
don't care desu senpai will continue using ff even if they start putting a black man grabbing a white woman by the ass with a little white chicken cluckety clucking in the background

>>59139575
>>59139577
>fukinn google man, they like NSA n shit!!
>meanwhile uses modified chrome that
"""supposedly""""
>gets rid of the all the "NSA, Datamining,botnet" shit
please put a gun in your mouth for even thinking that placebo garbage is working

>>59139654
>no traffic outside of what is acceptable
>checked myself with wireshark
>placebo
What did he mean by this?

File: 15k to run a script.png (17KB, 834x85px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 834x85px

what did they mean by this

File: 1*dTe3vntI9r6BiEcmHz9VkA.jpg (218KB, 1920x817px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1920x817px

>>59139711

>>59139687
>implying chrome can't detect if something like wireshark is running in the background
>thinking google is this retarded that they dont first scan your entire harddisk for any """privacy""" software installed so they can """adjust""" their algorithm to """evade""" that shit

File: 1487858055610.gif (614KB, 267x199px) Image search: [Google]

614KB, 267x199px

>>59139763
>Using an OS that allows just any program to scan your disk like that

>>59139763
You know that code is open source right?
If there was a backdoor that sophisticated in webkit or chromium itself, people would know about it.

And if you don't compile from source you're a bum in terms of security anyways.

>>59139763
>implying you can detect passive packet sniffing
>implying chromium and webkit aren't audited like shit
Yeah right.

File: 1488130792647.png (36KB, 268x237px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 268x237px

>>59139763
>Monitor network from external firewall

>>59139792
>"""Trusting""" other people that work on your """Privacy oriented software""" without even looking at the source code yourself
>Regularly updating your software from """source""" while fully """trusting""" some russians that randomly """contribute""" to that """garbage""" you have installed
>>59139783
>Thinking GNU/Linux is 100% safe if you just randomly install shit with apt-get install, pacman -S, cmake
anon pls dont be this gullible

>>59139874
Do you HONESTLY believe Google doesn't use dummyservers to reroute the data back to google? You are so stupid anon

>>59139884
Fuck you anon, i'm actually part of those random russians and we do serious work over there.

Security audits are serious business yo.

>>59139905
>>59139884
>getting this ridiculous
I want to see how far you can go. And then continue for a bit.

File: constitution_people.jpg (146KB, 879x506px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 879x506px

>>59138998
stormfront fuck your girl or what nigger?

File: reddit circlejerk.gif (925KB, 700x478px) Image search: [Google]

925KB, 700x478px

>>59138998

>>59139763
>there is an algorithm elaborate enough to detect and avoid known privacy measures
>not only this, but the code for this is so small and obfuscated that it's gone completely unnoticed in an open source program

This seems likely.

File: 1460793501119.jpg (90KB, 906x799px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 906x799px

>>59139188
>gee wolly willikers

>>59140453
Please don't claim to care about privacy if you don't even check the sourcecode in its entirety.

>>59140682
So have you checked all of Linux source code personally?

>>59140758
I have and thats why I have decided not to use it in my own home. I only go on the internet when im in coffeebars or am in a library. As for @home I don't have internet and use my computer solely for coding and offline videogames.
HF with that NSA backdoor installed into your archlinux, debian bloatware :^)