Live data from Hacker News

UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

github.com

71–80 of 441 posts

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#71
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you say that it's not easy to contribute to Chromium? Also the "last truly open-source" browser is hyperbolic given that Chromium is both open-source and is also developed in the open[1][2][3]. If anything over the past few years it has become more open-source as many components have been upstreamed (e.g. pdfium, android/ios stuff, etc.) [1] Chromium bug tracker: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/lis…

I think there also needs to be a highlighted difference between an open source product, and an open source repository which is NOT the product which is distributed. Chromium is open source, but the supported product where the developer cares about the quality of the experience is Chrome. Android is much the same, where the platform almost all apps and services target requires Google Play. I can't expect Google to pro…

Not to mention when you visit YouTube or any other site they spam the annoying adverts to use chrome. Fuq that. If we want to download another browser we will.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#72

While I applaud the effort that's gone into this, I urge people to consider (and use and contribute to!) Firefox. It's one of the last truly open-source browsers - both in terms of source code visibility (which Chrome(ium) has), and in terms of being able to contribute (which Chrome(ium) has not).

I would love to. But as a recent and former Firefox user, the performance just wasn't there. Both Edge and Chrome are significantly faster. I'm hoping electrolysis helps greatly in this regard. I'll be happy to switch back.

Just out of curiosity, what are you using the browser for that one is noticeably slower than the other?

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#73

While I applaud the effort that's gone into this, I urge people to consider (and use and contribute to!) Firefox. It's one of the last truly open-source browsers - both in terms of source code visibility (which Chrome(ium) has), and in terms of being able to contribute (which Chrome(ium) has not).

I tend to agree with you: Firefox is definitely more user-focused than Chrome or Chromium.

However, Firefox's user-centric development model has been declining for years now as Mozilla has grown and become accustomed to raking in hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Mozilla has been actively imitating Chrome for some time now. It is becoming less unique.

Mozilla's future plans for Firefox continue to make it less like Firefox and more like Chromium. The coming changes to the addon APIs, deprecation of XPCOM/XUL, etc, will probably erase any useful distinction between Firefox and Chrome. Electrolysis, while nice in theory (because who isn't tired of the janky Firefox UI), will also probably erase Firefox's advantage in memory usage.

It saddens me to say it, but Firefox needs to die and be reborn--the Phoenix needs to rise again from the ashes. Perhaps this has already happened in a sense with Pale Moon, although Pale Moon isn't even in Debian, so using it requires extra effort.

But it won't really happen (Firefox dying/forking) until Mozilla hits rock bottom. Only when they are forced to confront their bloated bureaucracy and their lack of user-focus will any real change happen. It will require (near)bankruptcy, leadership change and many layoffs. And who knows if Firefox would even survive; it's so enormous and complex, would anyone pick up the pieces? Would a community effort even be able to?

Anyway, we won't have to wait long to find out. The way Mozilla's going, I'd be surprised if they still exist in their current form in 3 years. Sad, but hey, Netscape died to give birth to Firefox, so maybe Mozilla's death will give birth to...Phoenix? (Can we use that name now, after all these years?)

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#74
Well there are two evils here, and we're be asked to choose which devil. I'm not even certain what solution there is?

On the subject of Chrome, the answer is simple, never let a google product enter your home, device, or car. Never. Like Putin says "Google is NSA".

On the subject of Firefox, it pisses me off, while on windows I can turn off 'updates', on say linux they have taken the option off the menu. I hate the updates on firefox, every time they update they remove my privacy preferences and reset to virgin. It's a pain in the arse. Then there is the firefox/mozilla maintenance engine that will update even when you tell Mozilla not to update. Again a pain.

To think that Mozilla is not 'owned' by CIA/NSA like Google is a joke, just like Tor, all is owned.

The question is, what is NOT owned?

Windows ( Microsoft ) is owned, for years my solution was to only run Firefox 2.0, .. and stick with it, now they're on Firefox 49, and I feel like I'm running IE, to hell with Chrome, since day one, it was spyware sending data to NSA.

The problem is that all high-tech is fed money from Federal Reserve Fiat trillions of dollars, and all that fake money feed's Oracle, Google, you name, and all is used to control and monitor every person on earth that uses or is near an electronic device.

Privacy? Control? Transparency? Those words shall not be used in or around the mention of "Google".

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#75
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about "Internet Explorer", is that using IE Edge, I often run into websites that demand I "Upgrade" to Chrome and won't let me use them. Fudging the user agent however, allows that website to work perfectly fine. Not testing in IE is one thing. Presenting an nonintrusive message warning you don't test in IE is another. Paying money to advertise your website, then, when I click your link, greeting me with a…

To be fair, that notification is for the benefit of the everyone. Users are too lazy/ignorant to switch browsers. The notification pushes them over the edge and prompts them to switch. They get a more secure and overall better browser. On the other side, developers can spend more time developing features instead of fixing IE compatibility bugs.

The notification pushes them over the edge and prompts them to switch.

Pun intended? But seriously, whenever I see one of these browser-blockers (and it seems Opera gets hit too), I just leave the site and never come back. Chances are, your site is not unique and I'll find what I need somewhere else.

developers can spend more time developing features

IMHO, those are "features" which no one really cares about. Stop messing around with fancy CSS and JS, spend the time developing a simple site that almost naturally works in IE too.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#76

While I applaud the effort that's gone into this, I urge people to consider (and use and contribute to!) Firefox. It's one of the last truly open-source browsers - both in terms of source code visibility (which Chrome(ium) has), and in terms of being able to contribute (which Chrome(ium) has not).

I second this opinion. I think Chrome has a lot of interesting parts from a technological perspective. However, I think Firefox as an organization has done more for JavaScript and that community as far as fostering an open environment than any other browser maker. So providing a good browser plus fostering and growing the development community are both great things. Another advantage is that it is not tied to some la…

> In general I think people ought to look at Google much more skeptically than they used to and all of the technologies that they push for. They all in some way push their agenda forward.

I've been skeptical of Google for a long time, and quit using them as much as possible since they rolled out "Don't be evil." Talk about telegraphing the punch.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever tried contributing to Firefox from outside Mozilla Corp? My experience was not positive.

Could you please tell me more about your experience? The core Firefox / Gecko repos can be a bit conservative and slow to accept patches, but subprojects like Firefox Accounts / Sync, Devtools, Rust / Servo, browser.html, TestPilot, etc. tend have much lower friction while still affecting the direction of Firefox. As an example, we recently replaced the JavaScript debugger with one written in HTML instead of XUL, usi…

I mean, just look at the recent "3rd Generation bug" story here on HN, a bug which was originally reported by a man who is deceased, and is now affecting his grandchildren. There are plenty of 10-15 year-old bugs on Bugzilla. And we all know how Mozilla is fond of pulling the "advocacy" card and locking bug reports. "To the forums with you!" they say--where discussions can be ignored and deleted even more easily.

On the recent discussion here about the Session Saver code, one Mozilla dev said that it needs rearchitecting, but that the issue is "manpower." I don't understand how a company that rakes in hundreds of millions of dollars per year can't afford to rewrite a problematic component--they had the manpower to write the bad design in the first place. Can they not afford to hire another programmer or two? Even now that they've cancelled FxOS? Where is the money going?

And generally Mozilla is taking Firefox in a direction that loyal users--who have used Firefox for nearly two decades now!--do not want. Mozilla is chasing Chrome users, rather than maintaining Firefox's useful, unique features. They just don't get it: if people wanted to use Chrome, they'd use Chrome. If they turn Firefox into Chrome, there'll be no reason to use Firefox instead of Chrome.

The handwriting is on the wall. Mozilla is no longer focused on making the best, most user-empowering browser. They are chasing ghosts, and when the money runs out...

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#78

Well there are two evils here, and we're be asked to choose which devil. I'm not even certain what solution there is? On the subject of Chrome, the answer is simple, never let a google product enter your home, device, or car. Never. Like Putin says "Google is NSA". On the subject of Firefox, it pisses me off, while on windows I can turn off 'updates', on say linux they have taken the option off the menu. I hate the u…

[deleted]

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#79
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any opinions on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Moon_%28web_browser%29 ?

No good reason to run that instead of Firefox. It looks like their main motivation to fork was to preserve XUL and XPCOM, but since Firefox doesn't plan to keep those, almost no addons will continue using them; every maintained addon will update to work with current Firefox. And using an unmaintained addon is dangerous .

> And using an unmaintained addon is dangerous.

Who says the addons have to be unmaintained?

https://github.com/Pale-Moon-Addons-Team

And look man, a lot of addons don't need to be "maintained," they just keep working. An addon that adds a button to the UI or something like that--it doesn't need to be constantly churned. Something like NoScript and ad-blocking addons need more attention, but a lot of very useful addons that let users customize their browser will continue working as long as the underlying APIs do.

So please lay off the scary language. Better be careful, when the Pale Moon comes out, addons become "dangerous"! :P

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#80
post #65

Firefox is not really a good company anymore, they care more about politics than doing something awesome. Cf. the firing of their CEO.

He was not fired. Straight from Mozilla themselves: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat... "On April 3, 2014 Brendan Eich voluntarily stepped down as CEO of Mozilla." He could have stayed if he wanted to. Yes, it would have hurt their brand if he did, and yes it should have. Because yes, I and many others care very much if the CEO of a product donates to strip a minority of equal rights. Than…

95% probability that was "voluntarily step down or we'll fire you."
Post reply on HN