Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 441 posts

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

#381

Post by BrendanEich »

offa wrote: post #33
dangoldin wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried Brave? I've been using it on the side and it's speedy and constantly improving.

Not OP, but I tried it some time ago, haven't checked back on it since. How is it privacy-wise, comparable to FF?

No, Firefox (same as any of the big four) does not block ads or trackers by default. Brave does. We also have no-script and fingerprinting protection, currently opt-in by site (but we hope to engineer f.p. to on by default).

Blocking 3rd party ads and trackers really speeds things up!

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

#382

Post by stephenr »

BrendanEich wrote: post #378
stephenr wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's called reading between the lines. "I cannot be an effective leader" is pretty vague and given your prior support which was then publicised by Mozilla staff, it's pretty easy to imagine that they did not respect you.

First you misquote me and add your own words against me not justified by facts in evidence. Now you say it is just "reading between the lines." Reading between your lines, I see malice and mendacity. Have you a better excuse? I remember a blog post by @tofumatt, flip-flopping from pro- before to con- after I left. That is neither "staff" (plural) nor "Basically: the staff didn't respect him" evidence. It's a post fro…

Excuse? You made a very vague statement about why you resigned.

The whole thread is about whether the public reaction to your support for a homophobic, discriminatory and unconstitutional law was out of line because your donation is protected by free speech laws.

I said your speech (and donations) are protected but that you also have to take the consequences of said speech (donation).

If you feel you were forced to resign by Mozilla because of your political views, you should take it up with a lawyer.

If not, I can only assume you resigned because you were unable to "manage" the situation you had caused. What other option is there?

Is the 5 letter word "borat"? Because I know the guy who donated $1k to prevent gays marrying isn't going to be accusing people he knows literally nothing about, a bigot, is he??

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

#383

Post by satuim »

nikcub wrote: post #208

Removing Google's binary blobs is mitigating one issue, but replacing it with an entire binary blog from an anonymous github user might be introducing new ones. On that note - can you tell us more about the project? ie. if you plan on keeping this updated long terms (i've watched a lot of promising chromium forks fade after an initial big splash), what your plans are, if you'll you accept contributions, how the binar…

You might want to check out - https://ffprofile.com/ Creates a Firefox profile with the settings you want.

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

#384

Post by BrendanEich »

stephenr wrote: post #382
BrendanEich wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First you misquote me and add your own words against me not justified by facts in evidence. Now you say it is just "reading between the lines." Reading between your lines, I see malice and mendacity. Have you a better excuse? I remember a blog post by @tofumatt, flip-flopping from pro- before to con- after I left. That is neither "staff" (plural) nor "Basically: the staff didn't respect him" evidence. It's a post fro…

Excuse? You made a very vague statement about why you resigned. The whole thread is about whether the public reaction to your support for a homophobic, discriminatory and unconstitutional law was out of line because your donation is protected by free speech laws. I said your speech (and donations) are protected but that you also have to take the consequences of said speech (donation). If you feel you were forced to r…

Yes, excuse -- you need one to account for making stuff up ("the staff didn't respect him") based on nothing but your own irrational animus, aka bigotry.

Don't change the subject. Blathering in five paragraphs about irrelevancies does not justify your bogus and malicious assertion.

Here is a free clue that might help you understand things, or not: in my personal experience apart from Mozilla, both at past jobs and from reading the news, when someone exits under duress at high level, a statement of few, vague, and neutral-sounding words is often part of the deal.

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

#385

Post by rplnt »

witty_username wrote: post #357
rplnt wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can hardly see source in Chrome without the dev tools. The Ctrl+U "functionality" just generates huge HTML document (a table filled with spans to highlight syntax) and it is very slow on large websites (both generating it and rendering I'd assume).

That's nothing to do with Chrome though, that's how the HTML is.

But the idea to generate that huge HTML by javascript to display source is weird. Especially when it takes half a minute for a big web page.

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

#386

Post by rplnt »

lanterk wrote: post #353
rplnt wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can hardly see source in Chrome without the dev tools. The Ctrl+U "functionality" just generates huge HTML document (a table filled with spans to highlight syntax) and it is very slow on large websites (both generating it and rendering I'd assume).

The CTRL-U is just the HTML part of the page. Not the CSS, images, or the other stuff.

Source HTML even, so whatever javascript changed is not there.

But for fun and laughs I saved js-generated source of a pretty big web page, opened it, and then pressed CTRL-U. It took 50 seconds to generate and render the source view. No wonder...

> document.getElementsByTagName('*').length

(should be fun to go deeper and save this html, and then go ctrl+u on that)

edit: Tried it and it's been choking on the next "level" for the past 9 minutes. The tab is at over 1.5GB memory, I'm going to kill it.

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

#387

Post by stephenr »

BrendanEich wrote: post #384
stephenr wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excuse? You made a very vague statement about why you resigned. The whole thread is about whether the public reaction to your support for a homophobic, discriminatory and unconstitutional law was out of line because your donation is protected by free speech laws. I said your speech (and donations) are protected but that you also have to take the consequences of said speech (donation). If you feel you were forced to r…

Yes, excuse -- you need one to account for making stuff up ("the staff didn't respect him") based on nothing but your own irrational animus, aka bigotry. Don't change the subject. Blathering in five paragraphs about irrelevancies does not justify your bogus and malicious assertion. Here is a free clue that might help you understand things, or not: in my personal experience apart from Mozilla, both at past jobs and fr…

If the staff felt they needed to make your prior pilicital donations more widely known, I'm pretty sure some of them didn't respect you.

Your words are insinuating that you were in fact forced to leave.

In civilised countries we have things like unfair dismissal laws. But hey, 'Murica.

Do what you want. Think what you want. I'm not changing any subjects - i tried to remind you of the original subject.

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

#388

Post by majewsky »

eriknstr wrote: post #334
majewsky wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe their regex checks for Firefox on Windows and you're on some other OS?

The dumbest user agent based browser detection mechanism I ever encountered was one that a major grocery store chain had in place on their website. At the time, I was running Linux on a desktop computer which had an ARMv7 processor. I visited their website and was, like in a lot of cases where they assume ARMv7 means I must be using a mobile device, redirected to the mobile site. That's not the stupid part, though (j…

Glorious. I guess that the mobile dev team is separate from the desktop dev team, and uses a different mobile browser regex.

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

#389

Post by near »

BrendanEich wrote: post #373
byuu wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why don't you link to our past interactions on HN? Here's a last in thread link, so people can read up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10660792 Hey, weren't you in Ohio the whole time, and not subject to California law in any event? Federal tax forms are not bound by California law. Nor are Ohio tax laws.

I didn't link to that because you didn't answer the topic being debated here.

Would you be willing to go on record and state whether you were forced to resign or not? If you were, then I agree that was wrong, and will stop linking to that FAQ post going forward. Instead, I'll link to your reply and offer my support that Mozilla was in the wrong for forcing you out.

However, if you're going to stay with, "NDAs and none of your business", then I can't work with that. I can only work on what knowledge is available to the public. And all publicly available evidence is that your resignation was entirely voluntary. I hope you'll agree that unless someone actually involved (such as yourself) goes on record, everything else is just baseless speculation. It wouldn't be fair to penalize Mozilla based solely on conjecture.

And yes, I was in Ohio during our 2004 vote to ban marriage equality via state constitutional amendment. I stated that people like you (as in, religious people imposing their views on others through force of law) helped make that happen. Marriage wasn't really on my radar until around 2008. I think it was just seeing California of all places vote against it that really crushed my spirit for a long time. I know empathy is really difficult, but imagine if our positions were reversed and I donated to successfully help prevent you from marrying your wife. How would you think of me? That I didn't live in California is 2008 is no reason I can't object to your actions.

As always, even if we strongly disagree, I appreciate that you're willing to respond and have a discussion with a nobody such as myself, so thank you for that :)

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

#390

Post by byuu »

ptomato wrote: post #326
byuu wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see that the board claim he was not asked by the board to resign. Well, you're free to your own opinions (and conspiracies), but not to your own facts. Preface your statements with, "I believe he was secretly (fired)", and that's fair enough. But us arguing about it without any evidence is basically Russell's Teapot. > Can you cite an instance of apologizing quelling an outrage mob? It would have certainly worked…

> It would have certainly worked here So no, you can't cite an example? > "I believe he was secretly (fired)" I see no reason to believe that what both the board and Eich are claiming is technically false. If you define "fired" to include "you know where this is going, get out now and save some face by resigning" then yes, sure, I believe he was secretly fired.

> So no, you can't cite an example?

It's not exactly a common occurrence for there to be backlash against CEOs for holding anti-gay views. I can only name the Mozilla and Chik-Fil-A CEOs, and neither apologized for it.

The best example I can give you is Rob Portman. He was vehemently anti-gay, until his son came out to him as gay. And then suddenly, like Dick Cheney before him, he found his empathy. However, I don't recall any gay rights groups continuing to protest against him after that.

So I'll turn the question back to you: can you name a case where someone announced a change of heart on gay rights and apologized, and the lynch mob kept on them after that?

Post reply on HN