What I wrote about a week ago to announce test:
It's rather unfortunate but I have learned about Brave from this article. Honestly, I don't know what to think about it. Since it is pretty much a cool idea that due to legalese can easily go against my "whitelist little guys websites to give them ad revenue" attitude. It seems convincing, but even despite being rather far from cynical I have my doubts.
If it is indeed largely Firefox, I would rather stay with it in the long run. But I'm not gonna lie, tomorrow I'll give it a try and see it myself.
This came after tests:
Disclaimer/Ass-shelter: This is an attempt at review. It means sharing a personal opinion and view will sneak, no matter how objective it should be in the ideal world. If you do not agree with me, bring arguments and not personal attacks, don't nitpick strong words or over-interpret them.
Yes, I do think that I must add this, because each time I share a (controversial) opinion I'm being given shit. Most of you guys and gals and non-binary genderians are cool, some could perhaps cool down a bit and attempt some paradigm gymnastics. If in doubt, read my profile. That's what I'm doing most of the time with you guys.
Thank you, and proceed to my attempted analysis and review.
1. Almost no reconfigurability! They took Firefox, of all browsers, and made it static! There is no way that I could find and access about:config. It's core is among the most configurable things ever, LEGO Blocks can hide when it comes to it. It's maybe not required, but there is a metric tonne of stuff that I am not willing to leave behind that can be only done with it (browser.fullscreen.autohide set to false for example, not to mention pretty much every performance-boosting tip).
2. No way to edit key bindings (that I could find myself or with Google) that allow me to switch workspaces/screens easily. I'm not going to change my Linux setup around a browser unless it literally transforms toxic waste into water.
3. This is so weird… I have barely seen any ads. Project is new, but that means that at the moment they don't have enough clients who want to advertise. This could be caused by my ass-of-the-world location, but it's rather sad.
4. Loading times and amount of data downloaded is not much different, if at all, from my Firefox with out of the box uMatrix and uBlock, according to Wireshark.
1. It is actually quite fast when compared to other non-synchronized out-of-the-box browser.
2. Accidentally or not, it is readable and rather slick-looking. Not my style of choice, but I can appreciate it.
3. Low amount of adds :P.
I don't hate it, but that's not much of an accomplishment since the only thing that I really hate are cheesecakes with raisins… urgh. I will keep an eye on it, but until they will allow stuff like about:config and changing key bindings I know that it is not for me.
Problem: probably a lot of people who would love to give it a shot will sooner or later discover that it lacks too many little options that while rarely used, change the use of Firefox into something highly (or slightly, depending on person in question) personalized. This means that people most likely to become early adopters will not go for it and recommend. Meaning low number of clients wishing to use Brave as advertisement platform. That's the problem with early adopters; usually love to tweak with stuff they get their hands on.
Possible solution: If you don't mind some of the Brave's idiosyncrasies (or deal-braking faults, depending on person) it could be worth to have it to browse from time to time. This will rise their numbers and help support the project. Easy, right?
But I would not recommend it as anyone's main browser. Absolutely not recommended for people who need high degree of customization.