A bad move. But again i hate that many distros have a default browser and they don't let you choose.
this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2025
88 points (75.6% liked)
Linux
52789 readers
452 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
one of the worst distros ever so I guess this is pretty obvious choice and telling to some.
Define worst? It does what it says, it's an easy stable distro for windows refugees. Slow updates doesn't make something bad
the everyday linux distro that is famous for asking people for money for their pro version, cause they know most of the userbase is coming from windows and doesnt know that everything is free?
They don't force you to buy anything. Almost all distros have a donation button on their site/git.
Nothing wrong with supporting projects you adore.
Ubuntu asks for money for their "pro" version.
It's a big reason why I switched to Debian.
Once again like Zorin, it isn't required to use the base version. Projects take time and effort, support is optional. Debian also has a donation page gonna distrohop now too?
You keep ignoring the "pro" version aspect of this.
Debian doesn't lock features or updates behind paywalls. It's not just about asking for donations.
What does zorin lock behind the pro version? Some themes that you could make yourself if you wanted. And they package some apps that you could manualy download. What updates are you refering to?
Why lock anything behind a paywall? They do it to take advantage of users who don't know any better. Otherwise, they would just ask for donations.
Why are you defending scummy practices? Are you a shill, fanboy, or useful idiot?
I am not a Zorin OS fanboy or anything, but honestly I don't see anything scummy about requiring payment from the user to get access to certain features of the product. It's just shareware. It's their product FOSS or not. I think they make it clear about what you get for free and what you don't. If you don't like that you don't have to use their product and you can use an alternative instead. It's not like they were a monopoly in the world of Linux distros and you have no other option. I see nothing scummy about this. It would be scummy if they would do some kind of false advertising (adverties features you actually don't get or adverties features in a misleading way) or if they started moving features from the free to the pro version that used to be free, because some people may have relyed on these features.
Can you elaborate? Because to me this feels like saying that the local grocery shop is scummy because it wants people to pay instead of relying on donations. If the whole OS was paid like RedHat Linux is than it would be OK or you consider that to be also a case of taking advantage of users who don't know any better.
Congrats.
Businessmen bank on people with low standards like yours so they can make more money off of you than they would with me.
Why don't you explain your arguments or make counter arguments instead of attacking your opponent. How do I matter here?
Nah people just frame it as if you need to buy it, while that's not true. No I'm not defending scummy practices, I'm just pro supporting software that you enjoy. That people like you can't handle others opinions and immediately resort to calling it "fanboy or useful idiot." The world doesn't need to be a copy pasta of opinions
There is a difference between a donation and a purchase. You can buy Ubuntu Pro like Zorin Pro. Its not free
Brave hates gays
"we replaced the browser with ad ware, that we even admit we had to ship settings to minimise its malware effect"
Brave marketing has gone crazy to convince people it's less dodgy than Firefox. Come on!
Yeah. Viral marketing is real but people never seem to be able to identify it.
They should've picked LibreWolf which ships with uBlock Origin. Brave is a disappointing choice because it supports multi-level marketing pyramid schemes which says enough about their moral compass.
--
✍︎ arscyni.cc: modernity ∝ nature.
I kinda dislike the default LibreWolf settings. Unsure if they changed it, but I remember that you have no history except you change it in the settings.
A Windows refugee wants a history. Addituonally, many pages just dont work.
My University also does capture a picture and reads it from the Canvas or something, which LibreWolf blocks. It doesnt show again if something is okay or wrong. I just got a Mail that I need to reupload it and go by myself to pickup my University-Card.
I wasnt the only one as Informatics has many Linux users and some Librewolf users.
Recent firefox policy change is controversial, but how brave is better?
"We don't like the proposed new Coke recipe, so we're switching to drinking raw undiluted sewage instead".
“Mozilla has a bit been shady lately, so we are making the difficult decision to change our default browser to something significantly more shady. We are confident our users will feel safer knowing their data is in even worse hands than before"
talk about bad taste
Seems like a strange choice. If anything i would've expected them to just use a firefox fork or something.
Zen is literally the best browser around right now, I do understand the UI isn't for everybody but if you vibe with it, it rocks
I'm actually not familiar with this distro. But if I installed a Linux distro, and it had brave installed. I would immediately switch.
Brave is a fairly recent outlier, and while it isn't quite proprietary, it stinks a fair bit of something capitalist/crypto.
That's gonna be a no from me, dawg
Firefox is bad, Brave is evil. Why did they decide switching is a good idea?
While FF's evil quotient has been on the rise, Brave definitely isn't a better option. If anything, librewolf is the way to go.
As a Librewolf user I wouldn't make it default for casual users this kind of distro is aiming for. Sure enabling logins to use it as a main browser is piss easy, but that's still more work than the average person wants to put into setting up their system.
Waterfox would be the better choice since it's just default Firefox in every way besides Mozilla's spyware.
Ugh. Why can't designers recognize they don't need to do things different just for the sake of being different?
I guess it's what makes them bad designers.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(26 replies)
Boo
Blech. I'd downvote this because I disagree with their decision, but I'm glad you brought this to our attention.
view more: next ›