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

Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 326 posts

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#101

Post by partiallypro »

twblalock wrote: post #91
partiallypro wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately Google and Firefox are a bit joined at the hip, but it's better than outright being the same thing.

How are they joined at the hip, other than Google being the default search engine that is easy to change in the preferences menu?

Google is the main funder of Mozilla via search royalties and direct funding. It's easily changed...but in reality Mozilla suffers if you do change the default because they lose royalties. It's hard to be a good competitors if your livelihood depends on people staying with your competitor's services.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#102

Post by mythz »

drb91 wrote: post #100
mythz wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer each website be in control over their own monetization model and not dictated by the whims of a browser vendor without their consent.

If you’re monetizing with ads, you’ve already lost control of your revenue.

Whatever monetization strategy Websites choose to fund their content is up to them. If ads are the best way to support free content then that should be their choice.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#103

Post by mythz »

Sophistifunk wrote: post #98
mythz wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer each website be in control over their own monetization model and not dictated by the whims of a browser vendor without their consent.

That's what we have now. It hasn't exactly been working out for the users.

In a lot of places Users who don't want ads can subscribe to access ad free content. If that was a superior monetization strategy most websites would adopt it.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#104

Post by jyrkesh »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #55

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

I use the woolyss binaries on purpose because they have Chrome Sync support on desktop (which I use for recent tabs and bookmarks).

On mobile, no Chrome Sync without the official builds, so I cede all my privacy there. :'(

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#105

Post by Zarel »

orionblastar wrote: post #80

What about SWARE Iron? https://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php It is supposed to be the version of Chromium without the Google crap, right? I use it at times to test it out as I test out different websites on different browsers. They have it for different platforms: https://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_download.php

SRWare Iron is a scam:

http://www.insanitybit.com/2012/06/23/srware-iron-browser-a-...

Basically any other privacy-oriented Chromium fork would be better. Iridium seems nice?

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#106

Post by lawl »

mythz wrote: post #84

My preference for a well supported Chromium-based browser that's not Chrome would be to use one of the "Blink" based browsers: https://vivaldi.com https://brave.com https://www.opera.com Opera was purchased by a Chinese consortium, I'm not a fan of Brave's hijacking of ad spaces so my preference is currently vivaldi - which was founded by co-founder and former CEO of Opera and has been adding new innovative features…

> I'm not a fan of Brave's hijacking of ad spaces so my preference is currently vivaldi

I'm not affiliated with Brave, but IIRC that requires opt-in from both the owner of the user AND the website. So it seems like a bit of a stretch to call it hijacking, when the website, ads are being "hijacked" from needs to opt-in to this.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#107

Post by partiallypro »

mythz wrote: post #84

My preference for a well supported Chromium-based browser that's not Chrome would be to use one of the "Blink" based browsers: https://vivaldi.com https://brave.com https://www.opera.com Opera was purchased by a Chinese consortium, I'm not a fan of Brave's hijacking of ad spaces so my preference is currently vivaldi - which was founded by co-founder and former CEO of Opera and has been adding new innovative features…

One issue here, is that none of these are good cross platformers for mobile. iOS and Android both force you to use their render engine afiak. That's why Edge uses Webkit on iOS and Blink on Android...yet Edge (proper) uses...the Edge engine. Mobile is so much of the world's web usage now...it's basically impossible to decouple them from their root OSes. Imagine if Windows in the 90s or 00s forced every competitor's browser installed to use Microsoft's render engine.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#108

Post by knownunown »

partiallypro wrote: post #107
mythz wrote: post #84

My preference for a well supported Chromium-based browser that's not Chrome would be to use one of the "Blink" based browsers: https://vivaldi.com https://brave.com https://www.opera.com Opera was purchased by a Chinese consortium, I'm not a fan of Brave's hijacking of ad spaces so my preference is currently vivaldi - which was founded by co-founder and former CEO of Opera and has been adding new innovative features…

One issue here, is that none of these are good cross platformers for mobile. iOS and Android both force you to use their render engine afiak. That's why Edge uses Webkit on iOS and Blink on Android...yet Edge (proper) uses...the Edge engine. Mobile is so much of the world's web usage now...it's basically impossible to decouple them from their root OSes. Imagine if Windows in the 90s or 00s forced every competitor's b…

You're correct with iOS, but Android allows browsers to have their own rendering engine (see: Firefox with Gecko.) Microsoft just didn't want to invest in porting EdgeHTML to Android.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#109

Post by mythz »

partiallypro wrote: post #107
mythz wrote: post #84

My preference for a well supported Chromium-based browser that's not Chrome would be to use one of the "Blink" based browsers: https://vivaldi.com https://brave.com https://www.opera.com Opera was purchased by a Chinese consortium, I'm not a fan of Brave's hijacking of ad spaces so my preference is currently vivaldi - which was founded by co-founder and former CEO of Opera and has been adding new innovative features…

One issue here, is that none of these are good cross platformers for mobile. iOS and Android both force you to use their render engine afiak. That's why Edge uses Webkit on iOS and Blink on Android...yet Edge (proper) uses...the Edge engine. Mobile is so much of the world's web usage now...it's basically impossible to decouple them from their root OSes. Imagine if Windows in the 90s or 00s forced every competitor's b…

Only iOS forces you to use WebKit which is why it's used by Chrome/Edge/Opera. It's not impossible to decouple them, you're prohibited by the license from using an alternative browser engine.

Android doesn't have any such restrictions so Firefox on Android are able to use their Gecko engine.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#110

Post by [deleted] »

partiallypro wrote: post #107
mythz wrote: post #84

My preference for a well supported Chromium-based browser that's not Chrome would be to use one of the "Blink" based browsers: https://vivaldi.com https://brave.com https://www.opera.com Opera was purchased by a Chinese consortium, I'm not a fan of Brave's hijacking of ad spaces so my preference is currently vivaldi - which was founded by co-founder and former CEO of Opera and has been adding new innovative features…

One issue here, is that none of these are good cross platformers for mobile. iOS and Android both force you to use their render engine afiak. That's why Edge uses Webkit on iOS and Blink on Android...yet Edge (proper) uses...the Edge engine. Mobile is so much of the world's web usage now...it's basically impossible to decouple them from their root OSes. Imagine if Windows in the 90s or 00s forced every competitor's b…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN