Considering how many tests Brave does not pass, I’d say that page looks pretty balanced and fair. Also it is consistent with independent studies where Brave came out on top of the list.

My impression is that most opposition against Brave is largely political. And then people try to find technical reasons after the fact, which simply isn’t justified in comparison with other browsers.

As other comments have pointed out, I’m not convinced the premise of your question is correct. I’ll throw in Slimbook to increase the sample size:

Funny how you do not address most of what I said … so, disingenuous it is.

Regarding optional features, I more used them as a segue red herring into the last three links

ftfy

Nothing good will come of this conversation, so I’ll stop it right here. Have a nice day.

Being chromium based it

• has better performance
• has less bugs
• has better standards compatibility

Don’t get me wrong, I am using Firefox, but your entire post is pretty disingenuous. Criticizing Brave over privacy concerns and then suggesting Firefox instead requires disingenuity or a special kind of ignorance and/or stupidity. Firefox has had 10 times as many privacy “mishaps” as Brave with all the “experiments” of corporate affiliates they shipped to users unannounced. There’s a reason there are so many forks of Firefox.

Pretty much everything you criticize about Brave is entirely optional.

Then you title a link as Brave “getting ousted as spyware”, and the linked to page does not oust Brave as spyware at all. You would do good to adopt some of the more neutral/factual tone of that page.

And in parts that page is pretty ridiculous, too: complaining about what is set as the default search engine (the same as Firefox, btw). Who the fuck cares what search engine is set by default? Just change it. Opt out of everything you do not like. If there’s stuff you cannot opt out of which is bad, we can talk about that. But arguing about optional features is ridiculous.

Edit: little add-on: Brave factually has better out of the box (no plugins) privacy protection than Firefox: https://privacytests.org/

Sorry, I am too much of a KDE user to answer that question. In Discover you can add, remove, and order remotes via settings in the GUI. I’d assume it would be the same in Gnome Software, but I might assume wrong. If your distro does not ship it by default, you’ll need to install a plugin.

Is the author of that article clickbait garbage actually not aware of KDE Discover, Gnome Software, bauh, and likely others? It has been possible to manage flatpak remotes and packages via GUI for years …

I’ve never seen this on the web, Jerboa, or Boost.

I take it you missed that the “previous one” was also sarcasm.

That’s terrible advice, […]

Is it really? It reliably protects people from all the garbage content on youtube.

Being able to adjust your sarcasm detector is a must-have skill. Sarcasm levels fluctuate wildly depending on platform, community, season, and topic. Otherwise you can never know if you’re making an ass of yourself when replying to other comments. Really, it’s irresponsible to partake in social media without a finely tuned sarcasm detector.

They’ve been doing the same with all hyperlinks in the gmail web frontend. Not when you fetch the mails via imap/pop, though.

They trained an “AI” on an empty set?

All the other comments kind of suggest otherwise, but I am pretty certain that fedora comes with firewalld enabled by default.

Konsole from the KDE suite has CTL support: https://docs.kde.org/trunk5/en/konsole/konsole/complex-text-rendering.html

I think mlterm has too. And likely others.

Where did you get this picture of me? Nobody was supposed to know that I’m a crustacean!

It never occurred to me, that people would use calibre to read books. I only use it to move books between devices (kindle →PC ⟷ smartphone) and to strip DRM. The stripping of DRM is actually my primary motivator to use calibre.