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

191–200 of 326 posts

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#191

Post by snaky »

bubblethink wrote: post #183
snaky wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's sad Chromium cannot being built without binary Google blobs for now, but that would be much better to have Chromium (ungoogled) in f-droid - with a 'anti-feature' sign - than to not have it at all.

It's already there on the bromite repository. If you go to bromite's page, they have an f-droid repo which has both bromite and vanialla chromium. It will not get into fdroid proper until it's fully compliant (given they also get the build resources, which is also challenging)

I wonder whether anyone tried to build it with open-source versions of the ninja and other tools, not blobs?

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#192

Post by phobosdeimos »

mythz wrote: post #123
drb91 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. And it’s my choice to block them. Brave actually offers a way to pay for content, if I understand it correctly.

Sure, you can technically starve them of micro ad revenue if you want, but if you're not going to abide by Content creators implicit contract of having their content served with supporting ads then IMO it's best for all involved that you either subscribe for ad-free content directly from them or just stop consuming their content altogether. There are humans on the other side producing that content, they have as much…

I hope you drink fair trade coffee.

(I know that stealing from white man is bad, third worlder in a far away land is not bad but I'm too autistic for the hypocrisy our society lives by)

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#193

Post by ben_bai »

lucb1e wrote: post #178
shagen wrote: post #99

I'm using https://iridiumbrowser.de

Lots of browsers are mentioned in this thread, before clicking each one it might be nice to know a few things like whether it's open source and how development is sustained.

It's Chromium without Google integration, too.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#194

Post by phobosdeimos »

h1d wrote: post #165
partiallypro wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the correction, either way, I view it as a problem that you can't (easily?) decouple in iOS. Some of these browsers listed have no mobile version, at least not ones fully baked. That alone forces people into the hands of the mobile defaults like Chrome and Safari.

> I view it as a problem What kind of problem? It makes web browsing stable as the internal engine is tested by Apple without third party bringing their own with updates at random moments and from web developer's perspective, they get a predictable result within iOS without effort and from those, I don't see a problem from users' perspective too. Maybe you work for Mozilla.

Choice is bad.

Anyone remember the 1980s Apple commercial referencing Big Brother? Hilarious in hindsight.

https://youtu.be/2zfqw8nhUwA

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#195

Post by tajen »

lucb1e wrote: post #175
lettergram wrote: post #7

You could always switch to Firefox and use something like fastmail or protonmail. Did that a year ago, and actually it works better on mobile imo

What does email have to do with switching browsers? Last I heard Gmail also works on Firefox.

The reason people switch today is because Google introduced a few days ago an automatic and mandatory login of Chrome when you log in Gmail/any other property.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#196

Post by Nux »

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…

Been eyeing Vivaldi for a long time, still waiting for their Android browser.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#198

Post by poooogles »

sgustard wrote: post #170
mythz wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, you can technically starve them of micro ad revenue if you want, but if you're not going to abide by Content creators implicit contract of having their content served with supporting ads then IMO it's best for all involved that you either subscribe for ad-free content directly from them or just stop consuming their content altogether. There are humans on the other side producing that content, they have as much…

I don't "know" as a viewer how ad-based business models work. In fact I generally assume that ads have to be clicked on to make money. Since I haven't clicked on an ad in years, does that make me a freeloader? I'll assume that once eye-tracking is commonplace then publishers will get paid only when viewers look at their ads. If I avert my eyes, am I stealing? On the other hand: why can't an ad-blocker plugin still tr…

>In fact I generally assume that ads have to be clicked on to make money.

Not at all. Most of the industry moved away from CPC a while ago due to how dodgy it skews data. Most clicks end up being bots on shady websites Vs actual people. Viewabilty is what the good agencies are advertising against now; with the hope that you'll navigate to the advertiser's site down the line.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#199

Post by hrktb »

h1d wrote: post #159
astonex wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to add my company's browser too, http://whale.naver.com/ Chromium-based, actively developed, and has Android+iOS browsers. You can use chrome extensions with it too.

Browser is such a security nightmare, how would one want to trust from a random vendor? What is it's selling point?

To back astonex’s point, I never tried their browser but Navernis far from a random company.

If you’re afraid of them not having enough resource or not caring enough to maintain it, the company has deep pocket and won’t disappear tomorrow.

I know naver mainly as a chat app, and it was pretty good and hugely popular in Asia at a point. There was a huge account leak a few years ago, so I guess they also should be battle tested now.

Basically it could be a strong independent browser vendor mainly interesting in capturing users in their ecosystem.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#200

Post by Reelin »

sgustard wrote: post #170
mythz wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, you can technically starve them of micro ad revenue if you want, but if you're not going to abide by Content creators implicit contract of having their content served with supporting ads then IMO it's best for all involved that you either subscribe for ad-free content directly from them or just stop consuming their content altogether. There are humans on the other side producing that content, they have as much…

I don't "know" as a viewer how ad-based business models work. In fact I generally assume that ads have to be clicked on to make money. Since I haven't clicked on an ad in years, does that make me a freeloader? I'll assume that once eye-tracking is commonplace then publishers will get paid only when viewers look at their ads. If I avert my eyes, am I stealing? On the other hand: why can't an ad-blocker plugin still tr…

> why can't an ad-blocker plugin still trigger a payment for the ad view, while preventing me from seeing it?

The ad-blocker won't load the ad at all for two reasons. 1) Performance. Less to load (and process, and render, etc) means faster load times, less bandwidth consumption, lower CPU usage (think about all those extra scripts), etc. 2) Privacy. If your computer contacts the ad network at all, then it could track you.

Because the blocker fundamentally can't load the ad or contact the respective network while also doing its job, triggering a payment would seem to be more or less impossible.

Post reply on HN