It’s not Open Source / Free Software and it’s also based on Blink, like all Chromium browsers.
Not really sure about its selling points, but supporting Google’s grip on web standards seems to clash with the statement of openness in this advertisement.
Old Vivaldi was ass, the new vivaldi is awesome from a usability perspective. A ton of customizability, very clean, advanced features like workspaces and tab groups, …
Honestly the only things I’m missing is custom browser base (not chromium) and easier switching between browser profiles (cookies etc).
Yes, it is based on Chromium. But in the Chromium universe, it’s the best thing I’ve seen to date, no doubt.
Then I’ll pass and stick with Firefox. Seems like they’re trying to capitalize on some people’s current frustration with Mozilla and their Mastodon instance
Firefox is in this nasty ‘meh, good enough’ place where you have all your plug-ins, it becomes a laggy memory hog as time goes by, but it’s still ‘meh, good enough’ that you won’t change since everything else is garbage chromium.
I miss old-school konqueror, but I’m probably the only one.
I think it’s good of them to do this, but yes, releasing a browser that isn’t open source in 2024 is pretty ancient thinking.
As far as what engine it’s based on, there are really 3. Blink, Webkit, and Gecko. I agree that if you’re worried about Google taking over, Blink is the worst one to choose, but it’s not like there are a lot of options.
Used to do tech support for Vivaldi on Reddit before I left. It is a highly configurable chromium based browser that does everything it can to secure and take most of Google out of the browser. It has its own profile system and sync servers before it was enforced, blocks Ads and Tracking outside of the Manifest system, and is highly configurable with its own per profile settings, and has a user editable theming system. It’s adblock system isn’t uBlock level yet but it can use many of the same blocklists and blocks ads on the intake so similar to how uBlock does it now. It has a Mail, RSS, Mastodon Client, and Calendar. It has also done a codebase rewrite of the Chromium engine to optimize its performance. They literally also follow their previous commitments they made during the days of Opera where they have patents, but only to protect themselves and not to restrain others from using them. Back when they were making Opera they and the Mozilla Foundation used to send each other cake at major releases because they were both strong web standards organizations and shared patents at no charge.
And the thing is it is an Iterative release. They have about 50 people, and only 30 are devs. They have browsers on Linux, MacOS, iOS, Android, and Windows. They release more basic versions of the product and grow them then building an in depth product.
So why not go Open Source. Their size. Any company could take their large amounts of work, build on it and release it before they have time to react and it would mean an almost instant loss of control. They are pro-federation, anti crypto, E2EE Sync, and despite what the Brave Employee says on PrivacyTests.org, highly (but not purely) privacy focused browser.
Understanding that the browser is based on an Open Source Browser, and uses Web Standards, and you distribute freely, then why not just be Open Source? Many Open Source Advocates have accepted it as Open Source Adjacent and have even become a release on some less strict Open Source people. So why not? Their CEO answered this that it is basically a function of their size and the large amounts of custom code that they have had to make to the browser. If they went Open Source, which they discussed and tried to find a way they could, but any of the MUCH larger teams could just take their product whole cloth, put a minimal amount of work in and have a better browser and they would be shortly out of business.
For those who are all business is bad, remember that here is a group of people who through several companies and one under attack from Microsoft, managed to survive the original browser wars while supporting Open Source Browsers and Projects. The one bad thing you can say is that they originally planned to go up against Google and Chrome’s Manifest v3, but they couldn’t and couldn’t find co-operation from other Chromium Based browsers once they saw the exact form Manifest v3 was going to take. Outside of that they are working to get their ad block tech up to a near uBlock version, but they won’t just do to uBlock what they fear could be done to themselves if they were Open Source.
TL;DR
It is a free browser that has a very friendly set up process so if you want to see the features, download it and install it. If you are on Mobile I will warn you they are still having UX/UI design issues there.
Yeah I read a blog post about why it isn’t and the answer was pretty bog-standard answers for why anything is closed-source: “if we make these cool customizations open, then anyone could take it and make a competing product.”
Although intended for general users, it is first and foremost targeted towards technically inclined users as well as former Opera users disgruntled by its transition from the Presto layout engine to a Chromium-based browser that resulted in the loss of many of its distinctive features. Despite the fact that it is also Chromium-based, Vivaldi aims to revive the features of the Presto-based Opera with its own proprietary modifications.
I’m a long time fan and user of Firefox. I’ve heard of, but never used, Vivaldi. How does it compare?
It’s not Open Source / Free Software and it’s also based on Blink, like all Chromium browsers.
Not really sure about its selling points, but supporting Google’s grip on web standards seems to clash with the statement of openness in this advertisement.
It’s made by folks that once worked on the original Opera (back when it was still good).
Basing their new browser on Chromium is unfortunate, but the spirit of old Opera is there: customizability and focus on features for power users.
It’s the browser I’d be using if I abandoned Firefox for whatever reason.
Been using Vivaldi for about 2 years now.
Old Vivaldi was ass, the new vivaldi is awesome from a usability perspective. A ton of customizability, very clean, advanced features like workspaces and tab groups, …
Honestly the only things I’m missing is custom browser base (not chromium) and easier switching between browser profiles (cookies etc).
Yes, it is based on Chromium. But in the Chromium universe, it’s the best thing I’ve seen to date, no doubt.
Then I’ll pass and stick with Firefox. Seems like they’re trying to capitalize on some people’s current frustration with Mozilla and their Mastodon instance
Firefox is in this nasty ‘meh, good enough’ place where you have all your plug-ins, it becomes a laggy memory hog as time goes by, but it’s still ‘meh, good enough’ that you won’t change since everything else is garbage chromium.
I miss old-school konqueror, but I’m probably the only one.
Firefox when I started using it was ‘meh good enough’ but now it’s 'mmmmmmmmmmmeh it’ll work…"
It’s basically “I mean, it’s still not Chromium”.
But that threshold just keeps getting lower :/
I think it’s good of them to do this, but yes, releasing a browser that isn’t open source in 2024 is pretty ancient thinking.
As far as what engine it’s based on, there are really 3. Blink, Webkit, and Gecko. I agree that if you’re worried about Google taking over, Blink is the worst one to choose, but it’s not like there are a lot of options.
Blink and Webkit are the same engine, just forked at some point in their history.
Used to do tech support for Vivaldi on Reddit before I left. It is a highly configurable chromium based browser that does everything it can to secure and take most of Google out of the browser. It has its own profile system and sync servers before it was enforced, blocks Ads and Tracking outside of the Manifest system, and is highly configurable with its own per profile settings, and has a user editable theming system. It’s adblock system isn’t uBlock level yet but it can use many of the same blocklists and blocks ads on the intake so similar to how uBlock does it now. It has a Mail, RSS, Mastodon Client, and Calendar. It has also done a codebase rewrite of the Chromium engine to optimize its performance. They literally also follow their previous commitments they made during the days of Opera where they have patents, but only to protect themselves and not to restrain others from using them. Back when they were making Opera they and the Mozilla Foundation used to send each other cake at major releases because they were both strong web standards organizations and shared patents at no charge.
And the thing is it is an Iterative release. They have about 50 people, and only 30 are devs. They have browsers on Linux, MacOS, iOS, Android, and Windows. They release more basic versions of the product and grow them then building an in depth product.
So why not go Open Source. Their size. Any company could take their large amounts of work, build on it and release it before they have time to react and it would mean an almost instant loss of control. They are pro-federation, anti crypto, E2EE Sync, and despite what the Brave Employee says on PrivacyTests.org, highly (but not purely) privacy focused browser.
Understanding that the browser is based on an Open Source Browser, and uses Web Standards, and you distribute freely, then why not just be Open Source? Many Open Source Advocates have accepted it as Open Source Adjacent and have even become a release on some less strict Open Source people. So why not? Their CEO answered this that it is basically a function of their size and the large amounts of custom code that they have had to make to the browser. If they went Open Source, which they discussed and tried to find a way they could, but any of the MUCH larger teams could just take their product whole cloth, put a minimal amount of work in and have a better browser and they would be shortly out of business.
For those who are all business is bad, remember that here is a group of people who through several companies and one under attack from Microsoft, managed to survive the original browser wars while supporting Open Source Browsers and Projects. The one bad thing you can say is that they originally planned to go up against Google and Chrome’s Manifest v3, but they couldn’t and couldn’t find co-operation from other Chromium Based browsers once they saw the exact form Manifest v3 was going to take. Outside of that they are working to get their ad block tech up to a near uBlock version, but they won’t just do to uBlock what they fear could be done to themselves if they were Open Source.
TL;DR It is a free browser that has a very friendly set up process so if you want to see the features, download it and install it. If you are on Mobile I will warn you they are still having UX/UI design issues there.
the browser itself seems to not be open source
Yeah I read a blog post about why it isn’t and the answer was pretty bog-standard answers for why anything is closed-source: “if we make these cool customizations open, then anyone could take it and make a competing product.”
https://vivaldi.com/blog/technology/why-isnt-vivaldi-browser-open-source/
*says while using open source engine
From their wiki:
Although intended for general users, it is first and foremost targeted towards technically inclined users as well as former Opera users disgruntled by its transition from the Presto layout engine to a Chromium-based browser that resulted in the loss of many of its distinctive features. Despite the fact that it is also Chromium-based, Vivaldi aims to revive the features of the Presto-based Opera with its own proprietary modifications.
Far better UI, built-in ad blocker that does get complained about by some sites, but likely less locked down than Fennec or Mull.
Try working with the Vivaldi Speed Dial for a bit then wonder what Mitchell Baker was doing all those years.
Built-in note taking app, page capture, etc.
Good daily driver for non-secure doings just keep in mind the chromium framework framework.