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

291–300 of 326 posts

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#291

Post by drb91 »

bartread wrote: post #258
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.

> Brave actually offers a way to pay for content, if I understand it correctly. And that's great if a large volume of your visitors are using Brave, but that's certainly not the case for us. Granted, this is anecdata, but I suspect that it holds true for many other sites. (On a personal note, I'm afraid I object to Brave simply on the basis of its gratingly pretentious name: I've known plenty of people who are brave,…

> On a personal note, I'm afraid I object to Brave simply on the basis of its gratingly pretentious name

I wouldn't blame you.

In any case, this is more of an ethical preference than a serious statement about the viability about Brave's specific monetization model... any product that gives the consumer more choice without entirely depriving people of revenue is welcome to me.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#292

Post by stordoff »

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.

Did it also bring stability when Microsoft bundled IE with Windows? Because I'm not sure how you can differentiate the two (and I doubt most would think that was good for the long term health of the Internet).

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#293

Post by jononor »

pythonaut_16 wrote: post #288
jononor wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The developers decisions are influenced a lot on marketshare. Non-Chrome/Blink being more common will make "Works in Chrome" development less common.

That's fair but you can easily develop for the majority Chrome marketshare by focusing on designing and building your applications on top of the actual web standards instead of Chrome's specific implementations. Probably 95% of the APIs you use in a typical app will be easy to use in a standard way anyway. WebRTC and some of the more mercurial APIs might be a challenge though.

Most developers probably try to do that. But often they only develop on Chrome, and maybe only have automated tests in Chrome (or not at all...). And then when it then breaks for non-Chrome, fixing tends to get lower priority than new features and bug affecting more users.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#294

Post by jplayer01 »

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 really wanted to like Vivaldi but it deals with a lot of tabs far worse than Chrome ever did and Chrome is utterly abysmal with more than 50 tabs (while I am easily pushing 400 tabs on Firefox with good performance behavior).

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#295

Post by ska »

mythz wrote: post #158
TeMPOraL wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are humans on the other side producing that content, they have as much right for being compensated for their efforts as we do. They have a right to ask for compensation, and a right to require it. They have no right to be compensated, if they choose to give away the content for free. That would be saying they have a right to force people to be generous. Whining about ad-blockers is simply being manipulative,…

> Whining about ad-blockers is simply being manipulative, it's trying to guilt-trip people into abandoning their self interest for free. Your attestation usage of "manipulative" is attempting to manipulate in itself. Like I said everyone is technically free to do what they want, but it doesn't change the fact that starving content producers of micro ad revenue goes against their wishes which in most cases deprives th…

   The implicit social contract is for Content producers to create content consumers want which is consumed in the way they want their content served.
This is just very misguided, by using a completely producer-centric view. The web is merely not a network to connect businesses with customers. When your users are applying a technology to avoid rendering adds, it is a market signal. But the signal isn't simply "I don't want to pay for this content", it is far more likely "stop tracking me across sites and logins".

I certainly agree with you that content producers should have a mechanism for the possibility of revenue, but this is a two way street. Advertising networks have worked for some things , but are becoming more and more invasive, and hence more and more problematic. If enough people reject the model, content producers need to be either looking for a new model or looking for ways to improve this one. This stuff isn't rocket science.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#296

Post by kodablah »

kodablah wrote: post #276
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 I made: https://cretz.github.io/doogie/ . Admittedly a bit behind on Chromium (updated locally for myself, deploying this week) and no macOS support yet.

Update: released with latest Chromium version

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#297

Post by pnw_hazor »

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…

Content creators lost all support or concern from me by supporting privacy destroying ad networks.

So I block all ads and all trackers.

I keep one browser in vanilla condition in case I run into a government site that won't work with the blockers.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#298

Post by pnw_hazor »

colordrops wrote: post #153
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 huge fan of the ad hijacking, but I find the proprietary license for Vivaldi more off-putting that the open license that Brave uses.

Brave can also be run just as a blocker

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#299

Post by TimTheTinker »

techntoke wrote: post #286
vbsteven wrote: post #162

If you're so afraid of Google just don't use Chromium at all. It's a bit like using tools developed by the NSA thinking you are safe because you manually applied patches for all the known backdoors.

Chromium is open source. MacOS, Windows, Safari, Edge, etc are not.

Safari is open source (see WebKit).

Darwin (MacOS kernel and subsystem) is also open source.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#300

Post by TimTheTinker »

invalidusernam3 wrote: post #40
ndnxhs wrote: post #21

Rather just use Firefox. Its an insanely good browser.

Everyone keeps saying this, I think it's time for me to switch. How are the dev tools compared to Chrome?

If you do a lot of debugging or reverse-engineering, FF’s dev tools lacks a lot of essential tooling compared to Chrome.

Things like getting all event listeners for a DOM element (with inspectable closure variable values), local workspaces, blackboxing files and folders, async-spanning stack traces, saving CSS/JS edits to source files, document event breakpoints...

Post reply on HN