Browser De-Slop

(sacredheartsc.com)

38 points | by cullumsmith 1 hour ago

13 comments

  • purpleflame1257 1 hour ago
    "Allegedly, these policies are also supported on Windows via Group Policy and MacOS using plist files. I wouldn’t know, since I use a real operating system."

    Real 2006 Slashdot energy here. Very rare to see in the wild these days.

    • coldpie 52 minutes ago
      If you go from using Linux for years to having to use an OS like macOS or especially Windows, it really does feel like using a computer with padded walls and safety scissors so you don't hurt yourself. You do get used to the limitations eventually, but for technical users it's a pretty noticeable step down in terms of how you may use and configure your own system. Calling them "not real operating systems" is definitely a little cheeky, but it resonates, and isn't out of character for a blog post about configuring your browser with JSON overrides.
      • bayesnet 25 minutes ago
        > … for technical users it's a pretty noticeable step down in terms of how you may use and configure your own system

        It’s such a frustrating experience on both ends—I use macOS for most of my work because I like the hardware it ships on, but it is so annoying to not be able to, like, use a different window manager (hacky accessibility API systems notwithstanding).

        On the other hand I’ve probably burnt weeks troubleshooting and configuring different compositors/window managers on Arch (and STILL don’t have the setup of my dreams), so it’s frustrating on that end too.

        • coldpie 12 minutes ago
          I have to use macOS for work. The window manager is so bad it makes me feel like a crazy person. They actually ship it like this on purpose?
    • cullumsmith 56 minutes ago
      There are some wandering sages who still practice the old ways.
    • throwuxiytayq 42 minutes ago
      I don't understand your sentiment - not sure about MacOS, but I'd definitely argue that Windows was much more of a real OS in 2006. These days, it's basically indefensible.
      • ad_fontes 10 minutes ago
        It's an intellectually lazy "No true Scotsman." I personally clicked away from the page as soon as I read that line because the author lost my trust in that moment.
    • danggggg 44 minutes ago
      [dead]
  • rafram 3 minutes ago
    Most of these are not good choices for most people.

    And "I use a real operating system" alongside a list of seven different non-obvious and seemingly arbitrary config locations is pretty funny.

  • VCFundedGenYer 35 minutes ago
    Don't use regular Firefox. Use Waterfox or LibreWolf which rip all this out with prejudice. Not worth the endless rat chase of disabling settings.

    As for Chromium browsers, none of them are safe.

  • rapatel0 33 minutes ago
    Why DNS over HTTPS?

    Not sure if i'm missing something, but i don't consider privacy protection slopware.

    • thesuitonym 22 minutes ago
      Unless you're running your own local DoH server, it's just privacy theater, and not even good theater. It's the same bogus argument made in favor of retail VPNs. "Encrypt your traffic so your ISP can't spy on you!" Meanwhile failing to recognize that you're just moving the spying agency to some free service owned by--oh, let's look at the top providers... Cloudflare (not great), Brave (advertising company), Google (Bad)... Need I go on?

      Perhaps you've forgotten that old adage: if you're not the customer, you're the product.

    • cullumsmith 32 minutes ago
      I run a local DNS server that has its own blocklists, internal DNS records, etc. I imagine most people who might bother to deploy an enterprise browser policy do something similar.
  • crassus_ed 1 hour ago
    Or just use LibreWolf. I've been using it for quite a while now and it has been great.
    • RunSet 34 minutes ago
      Librewolf is Firefox with user-respecting default settings. It even includes and enables uBlock Origin.

      Presumably the Google money is what keeps Firefox from doing the same.

  • OroPla 36 minutes ago
    > Disables all extra functionality (Pocket

    Wasn't Pocket discontinued and no longer exists?

  • alance 41 minutes ago
    The firefox bit has these:

    > Disables native privacy and anti-tracking features

    > Disables DNS-over-HTTPS

    Why?

    • protoster 1 minute ago
      My guess for privacy and anti-tracking is that trying to resist fingerprinting is, ironically, very fingerprintable.
    • coldpie 29 minutes ago
      With DNS-over-HTTPS, your DNS queries are sent to Cloudflare (by default; it is configurable). Without it, your DNS queries are sent to your ISP. The question is which company you trust more with your DNS queries.

      Given how often ISPs and/or countries do stupid things with DNS, I think DNS-over-HTTPS is a reasonable default. But some people don't trust Cloudflare with that info, so they use the ISP option instead.

      Both are reasonable choices.

    • cullumsmith 33 minutes ago
      I prefer to let uBlock handle all the blocking. Also I run my own DNS server where I have my own blocklists and internal records etc.
  • gampleman 1 hour ago
    Anyone know where to put the policy file on MacOS? And can you do this even on a corporate machine?
    • thesuitonym 18 minutes ago
      If you have write permission to the folder, you can do this on a corporate machine, but your IT department probably has a preferred configuration that will overwrite your changes.

      In short: Ask your system administrator.

    • cullumsmith 58 minutes ago
      I think most people use an enterprise MDM like JAMF or Intune, but manually creating the file at /Library/Managed Preferences/com.google.Chrome.plist might also work.
  • xnx 1 hour ago
    One man's bloat is another man's feature.

    (Sidenote: Over/misuse of the word "slop")

  • mechazawa 35 minutes ago
    > Disables DNS-over-HTTPS

    Why though?

  • blkhawk 1 hour ago
    I concur with the misuse of the word "slop". But this is almost exactly how i setup my browser anyway and since I only do that on once i am nor sure how useful this is actually... maybe for setting up systems for others?
    • duskdozer 10 minutes ago
      Multiple machines, multiple instances or profiles
    • cullumsmith 1 hour ago
      I find it most useful for a shared family computer with multiple users, but I also appreciate any type of config-as-code where possible
    • coldpie 56 minutes ago
      Yeah, I was gonna say. These are reasonable defaults for a technical user and I do much of the same, but it's also reasonable for many users to want the features that are being disabled here. It's not slop just because the author personally does not want them.
  • theturtle 6 minutes ago
    [dead]
  • scarylooking 1 hour ago
    “I wouldn’t know, since I use a real operating system.” aaaand stop reading there. No thanks.