Live data from Hacker News

Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

github.com

51–60 of 326 posts

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#51
post #33

This seems like one of the most difficult solutions to the problem of switching to a browser that's not Chrome. Not only are there other browsers like Firefox and Safari, but there are other Chromium-based browsers like Vivaldi and Opera. I would have liked to read about some expected use-cases in the readme.

why not Safari? Or is the issue non-MacOS OSs

Safari isn't open source, only the rendering engine is. Doesn't matter to most, but does matter a great deal to some.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#52
post #47

“It also features some changes” says to me that this isn’t a safe fork to recommend to others. Rather than simply releasing a de-badged instance of the public Chrome product, it additionally includes “editorial” comments in the form of turning various switches on or off. Use at your own risk.

if they transparently list out the changes (rather than force someone to diff the source), then it's OK.

I'm with this.

I'd actually like a fork of chromium with no googley phone home features. Maybe put timeouts on cookies and bunch of other things.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#53

“It also features some changes” says to me that this isn’t a safe fork to recommend to others. Rather than simply releasing a de-badged instance of the public Chrome product, it additionally includes “editorial” comments in the form of turning various switches on or off. Use at your own risk.

[deleted]

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#54
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially for Firefoxes container functionality. >Allows you to sign in to two different accounts on the same site. Allows you to isolate your sites from one another, by containerizing tabs. Allows you to avoid leaving a social networking footprint to keep those sites from tracking you. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.techrepublic.com/google-amp...

Funny you mention avoiding tracking while pasting an AMP link. But yeah the containers are fucking amazing. I use them for development to log in as multiple user types at the same time.

The irony is strong.

I'm still not happy with how AMP operates. Seems like it will mess up the interwebs. Something on IPFS along with tighter usage of compression and markup compliance is likely a better solution than AMP.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#56
post #3

Coincidentally I had found out this one today and compiled it myself after a frustrating experience with `brew install chromium` (videos wouldn't play; inputs would blink). I guess this has more flags set up by default, and it makes it easier to target a stable commit to compile against. Also as a word of caution, don't use ungoogled-chromium binaries - they never are fully official/confirmed/reproducible. Running op…

Wasn't the compiled-from-source chromium also downloading binary blobs without telling the user? There was an advisory about chromium doing it awhile ago.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#57
post #3

Coincidentally I had found out this one today and compiled it myself after a frustrating experience with `brew install chromium` (videos wouldn't play; inputs would blink). I guess this has more flags set up by default, and it makes it easier to target a stable commit to compile against. Also as a word of caution, don't use ungoogled-chromium binaries - they never are fully official/confirmed/reproducible. Running op…

ungoogled-chromium has deterministic builds

EDIT: never mind, I was wrong

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#58
post #3

Coincidentally I had found out this one today and compiled it myself after a frustrating experience with `brew install chromium` (videos wouldn't play; inputs would blink). I guess this has more flags set up by default, and it makes it easier to target a stable commit to compile against. Also as a word of caution, don't use ungoogled-chromium binaries - they never are fully official/confirmed/reproducible. Running op…

I did it one time. It was really long to download all the build tools and source code then even more to compile the thing. A lot of free space was required (there was few remaining on my SSD). After that the resulting browser was approximately two times slower (in my perception) than Chrome, so I ditched the thing after ten minutes. So it’s somewhat understandable that not everyone is willing to go thru this, especially for the disappointing result.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#59

Anyone know how this differs from https://chromium.woolyss.com who has been building Chromium, for all major platforms, without Google features for years?

Those seem to be builds of Chromium, which (even if you disable Sync and Widevine) still has Google integration in some places.

On the other hand, `ungoogled-chromium` is a set of patches for Chromium that removes every Google feature/integration/service from the code.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#60
post #59

Anyone know how this differs from https://chromium.woolyss.com who has been building Chromium, for all major platforms, without Google features for years?

Those seem to be builds of Chromium, which (even if you disable Sync and Widevine) still has Google integration in some places. On the other hand, `ungoogled-chromium` is a set of patches for Chromium that removes every Google feature/integration/service from the code.

Check features: https://chromium.woolyss.com/#features It's doing more than that - No Google API key, no user identifier, no metrics or crash reports etc.

I don't know enough of the guts of Chromium and Chrome to know if it covers everything, but seems comprehensive to my naive eye.

Post reply on HN