UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by glogla » Mon, Sep 26, 2016, 6:39 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #150

Frondo wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eich resigned because his political views made it difficult for him to continue doing his job. He wasn't imprisoned, nothing was done to him with the force of law. He just had/has unpopular views and accepted the consequences of holding those views. I struggle to see how the world could be arranged such that we could all hold forth with controversial views, but such that there was never a consequence to holding those…

> Eich resigned because his political views made it difficult for him to continue doing his job. This is a very disingenuous way of describing it. More proper way to describe it would be that a group of political activists put pressure on Mozilla to fire Eich because of his political views, for political reasons, and Mozilla as organization caved. There was no instance of Eich's views ever influencing anything on his…

> There was no instance of Eich's views ever influencing anything on his job, and no single instance or evidence of any problem with his job.

Maybe not direct instance. But if I were at Mozilla, I would have resigned because of him.

I mean, Eich was giving money to people campaigning for removing civil rights from people based on their sexual orientation. That's not a small thing - if it was race instead of sexuality, would you be okay with it? White Power CEO?

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

#192

Post by gnarbarian » Mon, Sep 26, 2016, 6:40 AM UTC

stephenr wrote: post #183

gnarbarian wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can't police people's thoughts/feelings. Cheers, Of course not. >Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of such speech. Fair point. Riddle me this: Should we force a baptist cake company to bake a cake for a gay wedding, force a Jewish bakery to bake a swastika cake, and force a Nazi bakery to bake a Jewish cake? If not one. Why should we force one and not the others? If you think the government…

> Which people? Reich and the guy from oculus who supported the trump group. > Riddle me this What is a "cake for a gay wedding" compared to any other kind of wedding cake? Is there same-sex marzipan I'm not aware of? A baker refusing to bake a cake for someone because they're gay/Jewish is discrimination, and bigotry/racism (religious discrimination if you consider Judaism purely a religion and not an ethnicity/race…

>Also, you're in the wrong direction anyway. A business refusing service isn't the same as a consumer refusing to use a business.

I'm trying to establish an objective rule for what kinds of discrimination you believe should be legal. You described each situation but you didn't actually make a value judgement (which was the whole point of the question).

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

#193

Post by glogla » Mon, Sep 26, 2016, 6:42 AM UTC

gnarbarian wrote: post #130

Frondo wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eich resigned because his political views made it difficult for him to continue doing his job. He wasn't imprisoned, nothing was done to him with the force of law. He just had/has unpopular views and accepted the consequences of holding those views. I struggle to see how the world could be arranged such that we could all hold forth with controversial views, but such that there was never a consequence to holding those…

>I struggle to see how the world could be arranged such that we could all hold forth with controversial views, but such that there was never a consequence to holding those views. What would that world look like? It's called not talking politics or religion at work. Or not discriminating against someone because of something unrelated to their job. There is zero conflict of interest between Eich supporting prop 8 and h…

There are limits to that kind of tolerance, though. You shouldn't care what politicians your coworker likes. You shouldn't care what religion your coworker follows.

You should care if your coworker is neo-nazi or if he is supporting Islamic State or Westboro Baptist Church.

The only diagreement is whether Eich was closer to the former or the latter. I can perfectly imagine people whose rights he wanted to take away to think he's the latter.

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

#194

Post by sangnoir » Mon, Sep 26, 2016, 6:44 AM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #162

smsm42 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Eich resigned because his political views made it difficult for him to continue doing his job. This is a very disingenuous way of describing it. More proper way to describe it would be that a group of political activists put pressure on Mozilla to fire Eich because of his political views, for political reasons, and Mozilla as organization caved. There was no instance of Eich's views ever influencing anything on his…

"There was no instance of Eich's views ever influencing anything on his job, and no single instance or evidence of any problem with his job." I don't know if that's true. I don't know how many gay folks work for Mozilla, but I'm 100% it's a non-zero number. They might have had a real problem with his donating to Prop 8. I couldn't say whether they did, being neither gay nor a mozilla employee, but I could imagine it…

> I don't know how many gay folks work for Mozilla...They might have had a real problem with his donating to Prop 8

Does that mean CEOs/management should be forced to resign for donating to the Trump campaign if some of their employees are Mexican immigrants or Muslim?

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

#195

Post by pcwalton » Mon, Sep 26, 2016, 6:47 AM UTC

armitron wrote: post #70

NeutronBoy wrote: post #4

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).

Unfortunately for everyone that cares about security, using Firefox (or Safari or old IE) is a colossal mistake since it's orders of magnitude easier to exploit (with almost no serious anti-exploitation mitigations) than Chrome. Spidermonkey in particular (Firefox's Javascript engine) is laughably bad when it comes to vulnerabilities. This is also the reason why the Servo browser that some folks think will be a lot m…

> Spidermonkey in particular (Firefox's Javascript engine) is laughably bad when it comes to vulnerabilities.

This is the first I've heard this claim. Do you have data showing this?

JS engines, from my point of view, regularly have all sorts of memory safety issues. No particular JS engine stands out relative to the others.

> This is also the reason why the Servo browser that some folks think will be a lot more secure (due to Rust) is mostly smoke & mirrors. They're planning to keep using Spidermonkey there too!

Smoke and mirrors? Servo has sandboxing, which is already implemented (and which I maintain). There's a night and day difference between that and an unsandboxed browser.

The goal of Servo's architecture is to, first, achieve a best-in-class sandboxing story and then, afterward, to advance the state of the art by reducing attack surface. We aren't going to reduce the memory safety attack surface to zero. But it's very much feasible to reduce it so far down that attackers don't even look at layout/DOM/etc. code for memory safety issues the way they do today when searching for browser holes. The return on investment when looking for memory safety holes in memory-safe languages just isn't there.

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

#196

Post by throw2016 » Mon, Sep 26, 2016, 6:47 AM UTC

I remember when Chrome launched. It was extremely zippy, felt fast and lean and had a clean interface. Adoption had yet to take off.

Those days it was all technical, google was perceived first as technically proficient and their agenda was to produce a fast and efficient browser. Many people could and did align with that.

Now there are too many question marks about Google's motives and agendas and Chrome does not feel like a technical achievement, it feels burdened by all these agendas.

Firefox is supposed to be the default go to when in doubt but why do you need such a large coporation to develop a fast and lean browser and here too there appears to be conflicting actions and agendas.

Now more than ever we need clean open source projects with no agendas but because of growing complexity its becoming increasingly impossible for small groups to do, and I think we have not evolved open source structures to deal with this yet.

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

#197

Post by gnarbarian » Mon, Sep 26, 2016, 6:49 AM UTC

glogla wrote: post #193

gnarbarian wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I struggle to see how the world could be arranged such that we could all hold forth with controversial views, but such that there was never a consequence to holding those views. What would that world look like? It's called not talking politics or religion at work. Or not discriminating against someone because of something unrelated to their job. There is zero conflict of interest between Eich supporting prop 8 and h…

There are limits to that kind of tolerance, though. You shouldn't care what politicians your coworker likes. You shouldn't care what religion your coworker follows. You should care if your coworker is neo-nazi or if he is supporting Islamic State or Westboro Baptist Church. The only diagreement is whether Eich was closer to the former or the latter. I can perfectly imagine people whose rights he wanted to take away t…

If you can't draw an objective and distinct line in plain English between where it is acceptable to discriminate and where it is not you shouldn't draw one at all.

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

#198

Post by Frondo » Mon, Sep 26, 2016, 6:53 AM UTC

sangnoir wrote: post #194

Frondo wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There was no instance of Eich's views ever influencing anything on his job, and no single instance or evidence of any problem with his job." I don't know if that's true. I don't know how many gay folks work for Mozilla, but I'm 100% it's a non-zero number. They might have had a real problem with his donating to Prop 8. I couldn't say whether they did, being neither gay nor a mozilla employee, but I could imagine it…

> I don't know how many gay folks work for Mozilla...They might have had a real problem with his donating to Prop 8 Does that mean CEOs/management should be forced to resign for donating to the Trump campaign if some of their employees are Mexican immigrants or Muslim?

I'm not sure why you're talking about "be forced to resign".

Eich resigned voluntarily, according to Eich and the Mozilla board (i.e. every involved party). No one forced him.

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

#199

Post by pcwalton » Mon, Sep 26, 2016, 6:53 AM UTC

armitron wrote: post #92

om2 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox is much less secure than other modern browsers. And Chrome is indeed very secure. But I think it's incorrect to say that it's "orders of magnitude" more secure than Safari. This hasn't been true since Safari introduced multiprocess and sandboxing. Safari and Edge are closer to Chrome in security level than they are to Firefox. That's why pwn2own doesn't even include Firefox in the competition any more but doe…

Agreed on Safari/Edge but note that I didn't use the words "very secure" to describe Chrome in isolation. How can something that gets publicly exploited year after year by _teenagers_ (1)(2) be called "very secure" ? The grim reality is that we never had a browser than can be called even remotely secure. Major factors for that are the implementation languages (C++ and C) and the vast attack surface. It's disheartenin…

> Major factors for that are the implementation languages (C++ and C) and the vast attack surface. It's disheartening to see this trend continue.

You realize that there's only one browser which is starting to adopt alternative implementation languages, and it's not Chrome, right?

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

#200

Post by gnarbarian » Mon, Sep 26, 2016, 7:06 AM UTC

glogla wrote: post #191

smsm42 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Eich resigned because his political views made it difficult for him to continue doing his job. This is a very disingenuous way of describing it. More proper way to describe it would be that a group of political activists put pressure on Mozilla to fire Eich because of his political views, for political reasons, and Mozilla as organization caved. There was no instance of Eich's views ever influencing anything on his…

> There was no instance of Eich's views ever influencing anything on his job, and no single instance or evidence of any problem with his job. Maybe not direct instance. But if I were at Mozilla, I would have resigned because of him. I mean, Eich was giving money to people campaigning for removing civil rights from people based on their sexual orientation. That's not a small thing - if it was race instead of sexuality…

My problem is that the law isn't enforced evenly. Either you are allowed to discriminate based on race/creed/sexuality/politics or you aren't. As it stands, the BBC can discriminate like this:

>A range of British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) television departments, programmes, and radio stations are currently offering highly desirable, paid internships, but white people are prohibited from applying.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/670266/BBC-advert-white-peo...