WTF? Chromium (2016) • Hacker News Board

Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)

#21

Post by MBCook » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 10:23 PM UTC

mariusmg wrote: post #7

tardygrad wrote: post #4

Or just use Firefox, even if it is slightly slower than Chromium it's at least a browser that works for you not one that treats you as a pawn. A Chrome monoculture is harmful, even if Google has the best intentions which I don't think they do - they definitely value their profits over an open web.

>even if it is slightly slower than Chromium Funny thing is Firefox Quantum is both faster and eats less memory compared with Chrome. >not one that treats you as a pawn. And sadly, Firefox is the only browser that doesn't treat you like a pawn. For MS, Google, Apple, that chinese company which owns Opera you are just a pawn. (later edit : fixed the second remark).

Re: pawn

What about Safari? (May not be an option based on OS though)

Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)

#22

Post by JustSomeNobody » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 10:28 PM UTC

fenwick67 wrote: post #16

edhelas wrote: post #2

I think that we are getting too dependent on this browser/engine (Chrome/Chromium/Electron and the many others derivatives). This will create serious issues in the future regarding how Google is caring about respecting the market, the standards and their users in general. Hopefully Mozilla has done a quite impressive work on Firefox those past few months and I personally don't see any advantages anymore for Chrome.

It seems crazy to me how may projects depend on Chromium and V8 directly. Hopefully with Firefox's new improvements some of this will change.

More to come with headless Chrome a thing.

Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)

#23

Post by tazjin » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 10:29 PM UTC

DominoTree wrote: post #6

tardygrad wrote: post #4

Or just use Firefox, even if it is slightly slower than Chromium it's at least a browser that works for you not one that treats you as a pawn. A Chrome monoculture is harmful, even if Google has the best intentions which I don't think they do - they definitely value their profits over an open web.

FWIW, at this point, the Firefox 57 betas are more responsive than Chromium for me. Not planning on looking back any time soon.

Same for me, I've also enabled all the experimental webrender flags on both private and work machines and have had basically no issues at all for the last weeks.

It's actually almost slightly uncanny how well it's working.

Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)

#24

Post by millstone » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 10:29 PM UTC

The love for Firefox seems misplaced, given that 1% of Firefox downloaders get a version that sends what you type to a third party (Cliqz).

HN discussion was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15421708

Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)

#25

Post by hathawsh » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 10:33 PM UTC

porfirium wrote: post #3

The Iridium website and logo look so professional and "enterprisey" that it looks like there's lots of money behind of it and they're going to screw you. A barebones or even text-only website would do them a favour.

I don't think that's a fair assessment. The web site (https://iridiumbrowser.de/) is nearly on par with the web sites for other big open source projects like http://python.org or http://ruby-lang.org .

I think it just needs minor tweaks. I would replace the marquee with static text and replace the section title "Manifest" with something clearer like "Our Purpose" or "Our Ambition".

Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)

#26

Post by nicoburns » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 10:36 PM UTC

laurent123456 wrote: post #20

tardygrad wrote: post #4

Or just use Firefox, even if it is slightly slower than Chromium it's at least a browser that works for you not one that treats you as a pawn. A Chrome monoculture is harmful, even if Google has the best intentions which I don't think they do - they definitely value their profits over an open web.

Firefox is not slower, it's just that most websites are optimised and tested only or mainly under Chrome. We are slowly getting back to the way things were with IE, but I hope that Mozilla won't give up and switch to blink or webkit like everybody else.

That is definitely not true. Firefox 57 is about as fast as chrome, and Firefox 59 may well overtake, but chrome has genuinely been faster than Firefox for a long time.

Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)

#27

Post by GordonS » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 10:38 PM UTC

laurent123456 wrote: post #20

tardygrad wrote: post #4

Or just use Firefox, even if it is slightly slower than Chromium it's at least a browser that works for you not one that treats you as a pawn. A Chrome monoculture is harmful, even if Google has the best intentions which I don't think they do - they definitely value their profits over an open web.

Firefox is not slower, it's just that most websites are optimised and tested only or mainly under Chrome. We are slowly getting back to the way things were with IE, but I hope that Mozilla won't give up and switch to blink or webkit like everybody else.

I'm curious as to how you can optimise a site to be faster specifically for Chrome?

Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)

#28

Post by snowpanda » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 10:40 PM UTC

tazjin wrote: post #23

DominoTree wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, at this point, the Firefox 57 betas are more responsive than Chromium for me. Not planning on looking back any time soon.

Same for me, I've also enabled all the experimental webrender flags on both private and work machines and have had basically no issues at all for the last weeks. It's actually almost slightly uncanny how well it's working.

>It's actually almost slightly uncanny how well it's working.

Indeed, I've caught myself thinking "it's not supposed to render this fast" a few times myself. Really am enjoying the nightlies.

Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)

#29

Post by PeachPlum » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 10:40 PM UTC

tardygrad wrote: post #4

Or just use Firefox, even if it is slightly slower than Chromium it's at least a browser that works for you not one that treats you as a pawn. A Chrome monoculture is harmful, even if Google has the best intentions which I don't think they do - they definitely value their profits over an open web.

Brendan Eich's Brave browser - https://brave.com/

Chrome without the tracking

Re: WTF? Chromium (2016)

#30

Post by yongjik » Tue, Nov 07, 2017, 10:40 PM UTC

Would the author be happier if Chrome/Chromium didn't do these "field trials", and instead just enabled whatever feature they were testing for all users, and the author was hit with the same problem, along with everyone else?

When you cut through the rhetorics, the author is basically complaining that Chromium decided to update itself. Well, maybe it warrants complaint, but I fail to see what's such a big deal. (The alternative is millions using browsers ridden with last year's vulnerabilities.)