To the folks who posted useless comments instead of actually helping: Thanks for nothing.

I don’t know what you expected. There’s no need to be rude. Installing a Flatpak for example is a very valid answer and would definitely solve the problem.

And initially you didn’t even say how did you install brave, which is quite relevant in order to find a solution.

Edit: You put the error in a screenshot which leaves it rather useless for searching the error in the web. In general, I’d say that you have very little error solving skills and instead of thanking for “nothing” you should be thankful that people even bothered to answer.

yes, but you missed an essential step of the process: apt handles dependencies for you. maybe not in this case, but installing .debs directly requires installing dependencies manually and it’s not uncommon for people to forget about this and then saying that the program does not work.

installing from an apt repo is always better as long as the repo is trusted (and it should be if you’re installing .debs from it anyway) because it handles dependencies and updates automatically. If you just install the .deb, you’ll have to repeat the process per each update.

Brave is known to take privacy (and security) more seriously than its contenders. It's therefore unsurprising to find it recommended by Privacy Guides.

At least in the privacy community, Brave isn’t super popular. It feels more geared towards the "hyped crypto early adopters". Brave inclusion in privacy guides has always been controversial.

Brave is ultimately an advertising company, they base their business model in ads. And everyone knows how bad that can turn.

Ungoogled Chromium on the other hand takes patches from brave and other Chromium based browsers, removing every bit of telemetry and giving you the cleanest experience you can get on Chromium, without relying on a shady company.

have you looked at the community? this is c/privacy and they recommended blogger lol

I didn't mean this specific one. I don't know anything about Skiff other than this post is a sketchy camouflaged ad for them.

If they supported IMAP maybe I would look further, but that's my very first requisite that they didn't meet.

the day I don't find a provider with IMAP support is the day I'll leave email for good. You won't force me to use your absurdly bloated and full of telemetry web clients or your incompatible encryption.

OpenPGP + NeoMutt has been my email workflow for 10 years now.

sure, a company that has used petabytes of data they do not own any rights of to train their models are totally excluding their own customers data when turning a switch off.

yeah, I totally trust OpenAI and Microsoft with my data. It's not like Microsoft is spying on me after turning of Windows telemetry either.

DE independent but it requires GTK4 and libadwaita. Maybe just call it a GTK GUI for Bluetooth?

it has to be enabled like a system service, so this is clearly a daemon.

is there a curl argument that can be used to block this behavior?

the architecture doesn't contain something like Intel ME. but it's MIT licensed and if Qualcomm, AMD or Intel decides to produce RISC-V chips they could (and probably will) use proprietary extensions and even include a ME-like coprocessor which locks down the whole thing.

I was going to say the same

this is an amazing obsidian alternative that I haven't seen recommended yet! I always here about logseq but I don't like it due to it's bullet format. And this is just great. I wish they had an electron install option tho, but still pretty great.

XMPP is a must. I automatically discard tildes that host matrix but not XMPP.

no need for a restrictive license! people can just take an apk and slap ads or malware on top. they do it all the time with fake candy crush apks. So I'm pretty sure they won't care about this license.

I think that in the license is just a excuse so no one is redistributing the app and they can make money from it.

no need for that! people can just take an apk and slap ads or malware on top. they do it all the time with fake candy crush apks. So I'm pretty sure they won't care about this license.

I think that in this case it's just a excuse so no one is redistributing the app and they can make money from it.

Can we ban posts promoting the use of proprietary software?

use a real operative system then

This is clearly biased. Your points against SearXNG are weak. And you purposefully ignore the huge privacy implications of needing an account to do searches.

I don't think this is written by a bot, but I'd say it's either a camouflaged ad or a rather biased article.

Edit: To be clear. I do not care that a certain company has a good privacy policy. I want verifiable facts, not unverifiable claims. Their backend is proprietary, while SearXNG is free software. There's only one entity behind that company, which could be (or turn) malicious at any moment. Meanwhile, SearXNG is hosted by multiple individuals and organizations, you could even use a different instance each time, so it's impossible to corelate your search queries.

So yeah, this is a rather biased article towards a certain company.

Google cloud consoles

those aren't Firefox issues. it's google purposefully using chromium only features and not well-supported web standards.