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

421–430 of 441 posts

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

#421

Post by [deleted] »

near wrote: post #411
BrendanEich wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Word count is rising :-/. I will try to make it go down. > You joined into the discussion with, "you don't know and I don't have to tell you." No (and there you go again -- your paraphrase is incomplete and downright inaccurate). I commented ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12587142 ) to link back to our previous HN exchange, because your comment up above ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12578451 ) made c…

> One example: "He could have stayed if he wanted to." You don't know that and can't really know it, so stop saying it. As I keep saying, the only publicly available evidence is that your resignation was voluntary. Voluntary implies optional. Optional implies you could stay. There's no leap of logic here. Yes, there could be behind-the-scenes NDAs and private events that meant you couldn't have. But unless you provid…

[deleted]

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

#422

Post by byuu »

BrendanEich wrote: post #420
near wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One example: "He could have stayed if he wanted to." You don't know that and can't really know it, so stop saying it. As I keep saying, the only publicly available evidence is that your resignation was voluntary. Voluntary implies optional. Optional implies you could stay. There's no leap of logic here. Yes, there could be behind-the-scenes NDAs and private events that meant you couldn't have. But unless you provid…

> but nobody held a gun to anyone's head This is not what you asked, though. You asked if something were voluntary (and assumed optional meaning disjoint outcomes for the given action). You used "had zero control". Again, the range of possibilities is bigger than "zero control" vs. "gun to head". Enough with the false dilemmas, already! If you are serious about talking 1:1, DM me on Twitter.

I feel like you're really looking for any faults in my expressions. Yes, my language is a bit overly embellished and colorful. But I've been hoping you'd at least get the idea I was trying to convey each time. It appears to me that I'm being a lot more black-and-white than you are in this case -- but again, that's me trying to characterize your position here.

As for Twitter, I think you can only DM people that follow you. And I definitely wouldn't want to inflict that upon you :P

I appreciate the offer, though. So, let me ask some trusted colleages to review this public chat to give a second opinion on my failings here. It'll give you a well-deserved break in the meantime, and time for me to reflect.

If something interesting comes of that, I'll try to draw a final conclusion and perhaps I'll send you a standard Twitter message to that for your thoughts, if you have time and don't mind.

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

#423

Post by BrendanEich »

byuu wrote: post #422
BrendanEich wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but nobody held a gun to anyone's head This is not what you asked, though. You asked if something were voluntary (and assumed optional meaning disjoint outcomes for the given action). You used "had zero control". Again, the range of possibilities is bigger than "zero control" vs. "gun to head". Enough with the false dilemmas, already! If you are serious about talking 1:1, DM me on Twitter.

I feel like you're really looking for any faults in my expressions. Yes, my language is a bit overly embellished and colorful. But I've been hoping you'd at least get the idea I was trying to convey each time. It appears to me that I'm being a lot more black-and-white than you are in this case -- but again, that's me trying to characterize your position here. As for Twitter, I think you can only DM people that follow…

My DMs are open on twitter -- anyone can DM me.

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

#424

Post by ccanassa »

Skunkleton wrote: post #336
eriknstr wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>removing dev tools Hold your horses! The introduction of dev tools was one of the best things to happen to browsers. Removing them would take away opportunity from a lot of people in learning web development, and would also lead to websites having more bugs.

My mom doesn't need dev tools preinstalled in her browser. Though I doubt removing them would make the browser faster/leaner.

Yeah, but you will need it when your mom calls you asking for help with some broken website she is trying to use :)

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

#425

Post by sctb »

hartator wrote: post #46

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

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12577985 and marked it off-topic.

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

#426

Post by tracker1 »

alphapapa wrote: post #364
tracker1 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

XUL failed... and while I really appreciate what XUL (and even XULrunner) offered, nobody really used it much in practice. XPCOM while interesting wasn't very widely used either... Neither got traction outside the Mozilla sphere of software dev. I would actually love to see some more work on creating consistent extension APIs so that a single add-on is easier to write against the big 4. I know that FF is caving in fa…

> XUL failed... and while I really appreciate what XUL (and even XULrunner) offered, nobody really used it much in practice. XPCOM while interesting wasn't very widely used either... Neither got traction outside the Mozilla sphere of software dev. Whether it "failed" is entirely a matter of perspective. From my perspective it has been a wild success, providing a flexible, powerful foundation for Firefox and Thunderbi…

Don't get me wrong, I really liked and wanted to like XUL... XULRunner was awesome when it came out (what a decade+ before electron?). However, everything outside of Mozilla's org that's used it is pretty much stale, dead or unsupported.

Firefox didn't dethrone IE alone, iirc, Firefox didn't even exceed IE usage until after Chrome came out, and even then only because Chrome ate further into IE's share and subsequently passed Firefox as well. Chrome was successful in part because of marketing, but in part because it was such a nicer browser experience. I still don't get why Firefox still has a separate search bar, when the address bar works for searches.

I'm not a Chrome apologist either, I'm frustrated with their decisions to remove browser scripts and make user installed extensions much harder to work with, the confusing nag notice at every startup is irritating to say the very least. I do find the UI much nicer to work with, though I wish it had nearly the advanced controls that FF offers.

That said, most people don't want or need to dig that far into their browser.. they want something to check facebook, watch youtube and send emails.

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

#427

Post by mzw_mzw »

Frondo wrote: post #188
icelancer wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"He resigned of his own volition..." Yeah, I'm sure he just up and decided to resign with zero pressure from political insiders and the flash mob causing outrage. That's probably what happened.

I for one commend Eich, for putting on his big boy pants and owning the consequences of his actions. He held an unpopular view, acted on it, and people weren't happy with him. Far better to step down and let the organization right itself, than to try and hold onto his position and his retrograde views simultaneously. Shows real class.

>I for one commend Eich, for putting on his big boy pants and owning the consequences of his actions.

You might as well commend Soviet dissidents for "putting on their big boy pants and owning the consequences of their actions" when the KGB marched them off to the Gulag. The fact that someone bows to bullying pressure doesn't make the bullying pressure OK.

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

#428

Post by smsm42 »

andybak wrote: post #252
gnarbarian wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.expr…

Positive discrimination has been endlessly debated but to wheel it out here without even bothering to acknowledge the nuances of the debate is a touch lazy and intellectually ham-fisted, surely? And to use the Daily Express to support any your point is going to reflect fairly poorly on your stance for anyone that is aware of it's reputation. Also - are we talking about the US or the UK here? Mixing the two situations…

I'm not sure how "whites aren't accepted" is positive in any sane meaning of the word. For me, the situation is very clear - either you say "discrimination on racial basis is prohibited" and then "whites can't apply" must be prohibited too, or you say "discrimination on racial basis is OK, as long as it's against right class of people" - and then this should be in the open, not "can't discriminate".

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

#429

Post by Skunkleton »

kevhito wrote: post #338
Skunkleton wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My mom doesn't need dev tools preinstalled in her browser. Though I doubt removing them would make the browser faster/leaner.

Is there something particular about your mom I should take away here? Or moms in general? Or women? Or older people? My mom, like yours, would have no use for dev tools -- because she's just not interested. And neither would my brother, but my grandma would have loved learning about this stuff if she had lived long enough, and my kids have discovered this "secret hacker mode" all on their own and are delighted.

Chill out. My mom is the most common non-technical person I deal with. No need or reason to assume sexism, ageism, motherism, or any other isms. The only take away from my comment should have been "Hey, non technical people don't need developer extensions".

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

#430

Post by Skunkleton »

ccanassa wrote: post #424
Skunkleton wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My mom doesn't need dev tools preinstalled in her browser. Though I doubt removing them would make the browser faster/leaner.

Yeah, but you will need it when your mom calls you asking for help with some broken website she is trying to use :)

Really? Do you commonly debug random websites for your mom?
Post reply on HN