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

301–310 of 326 posts

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#301

Post by matis140 »

pythonaut_16 wrote: post #265
bad_user wrote: post #243

If you're using "Ungoogled" Chromium, you're still contributing to Chrome's monopoly and you're still helping Google's dominance of the web. Chromium may be open source, but its development is controlled by Google. Unless you have Google-like resources available, you won't be able to create a meaningful fork that your less technically savvy users can benefit from. "Ungoogled" Chromium is a trap. Use another browser.…

The user isn't the problem, the developer is. If you're developing against Chrome/Chromium, particularly "works in Chrome" instead of developing against the published Web standards, you're support Google & Chrome.

I like the idea, but where we run into trouble is when the pm comes downstairs and says it looks wrong on his computer. He uses chrome. He rejects the story. Arguments about correct are moot. Everyone uses chrome is his trump card. The business perspective doesn't care about web standards.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#302

Post by commoner »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #299
techntoke wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Only Safari's browser engine is open source. The browser as a whole is released under a proprietary freeware license.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#303

Post by commoner »

brownbat wrote: post #124
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…

Just installed Vivaldi. Wow. Thanks. You can hold shift to select multiple tabs and then do all these operations, like mute them all, group them, display them tiled... and I feel like I'm just scratching the surface. It feels like the last time there was a big feature competition between all the browsers. Feature snapshots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4wyvKMRVeY&list=PL72e6dBabY...

Firefox also supports multiple tab selection with the Ctrl or Command key. This feature was added in version 62.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1458010

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#304

Post by blackbrokkoli »

pythonaut_16 wrote: post #265
bad_user wrote: post #243

If you're using "Ungoogled" Chromium, you're still contributing to Chrome's monopoly and you're still helping Google's dominance of the web. Chromium may be open source, but its development is controlled by Google. Unless you have Google-like resources available, you won't be able to create a meaningful fork that your less technically savvy users can benefit from. "Ungoogled" Chromium is a trap. Use another browser.…

The user isn't the problem, the developer is. If you're developing against Chrome/Chromium, particularly "works in Chrome" instead of developing against the published Web standards, you're support Google & Chrome.

This is not wrong, but you're missing the reciprocity.

Devs don't optimize for Chrome because they're evil, they do it because a vast majority of users use Chrome and they know that. So both parties can do their part.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#305

Post by mosselman »

fulafel wrote: post #249
mosselman wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was for me as well, but lately I have been experiencing incredible slow-downs in Firefox. I thought it must be my imagination until I tried other browsers and the difference was like between day and night. Firefox is just too slow, even with their new engine.

The new rendering engine is not on yet.

How is it not? I remember being bombarded with news along the lines of 'New Firefox is blazingly fast!'. Which one is that? How do I get a version that has the new engine?

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#306

Post by erikb »

simias wrote: post #211
erikb wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a huge fan of FOSS, but do you really think that you have full control over any modern piece of software? I think that underestimates how many people actually work on such a project and how many new updates we're getting on a daily basis. Nobody is more than %-wise controlling that stuff anymore. And this % is based on regular financial(!) investment in developer-hours but not in what software you use. PS: I just…

It's not about meticulously reviewing every commit for every project that I use, obviously nobody has time for that. For me the most important part is being able to fork the project if you want to add features or are unhappy with the way the original project is going, you don't merely have to beg the maintainers to add a certain feature, you can do it yourself. And perhaps more importantly I'm not screwed if, for one…

> or me the most important part is being able to fork the project if you want to add features or are unhappy with the way the original project is going

Which is not "complete control" and that was the point I was arguing against. That having source code access enables you to gain some control over your own life is not a point I was arguing against.

Additionally another point: even if you fork you can't keep that fork alive without manpower. Nowadays all the dependencies and apis change all the time as well.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#307

Post by dang »

shawn wrote: post #247
dang wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Zero explanation" and "emails have been ignored" is misleading. We've given you far and away more explanations and more emails than any other user. We've been more patient with you than nearly anyone else would have been, even while you complain on this site about how badly we treat you and openly flaunt how you troll us with comments like this one. The problem and the solution remain the same as the last N explanat…

I tried to treat you like a not-dictator and to express my concerns in a reasonable manner. You reacted as a dictator. Banning my accounts does nothing but drive me underground for three months. You don't know all of my accounts, unless you propose to ban all Tor users. Your explanation is always the same: "Your comments are misleading." But they don't seem misleading from my point of view. I seem to be throwing all…

That's not the explanation; the explanation is what I said above: off-topicness, drama, metaness, troll topics, self-referential rants, and tedious back-and-forths.

What I described is really a 3-month probation rather than a ban, during which your comments will default to [dead] but we'll be happy to vouch for the good ones. Since our software doesn't do probations, we have to use the ban system to do this.

When you use Hacker News as intended—i.e. when you post out of intellectual curiosity—your contributions range from fine to wonderful. But you're doing way more than this. You post many things that come from a very different place than intellectual curiosity. Those posts have a lot of energy, but they're not interesting in HN's sense of interesting. When you do this, you lower the signal/noise ratio here, often very badly. Other users get sucked in for their own reasons, resulting in large, tedious subthreads that nobody else cares about. That's not what this site is for.

Lowering the signal/noise ratio is the reason why we moderate anyone here. It isn't personal. Personally, we admire your cleverness and like you, which is why Scott and I have spent so many hours communicating with you, trying to help you, trying to get you to fix this. Most anyone else would have been banned a long time ago.

I'm sure it's true that we don't know all your accounts. And I'm sure you can create all sorts more trouble for us if you want. But for what reason? Doing that is not going to feel any better.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#308

Post by shrimpx »

ndnxhs wrote: post #21

Rather just use Firefox. Its an insanely good browser.

I would use it instead of Chrome but it's significantly slower than chrome on mac, especially from the perspective of a dev. (Not sure about Linux or Windows.) When FF catches up in perf I will switch.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#309

Post by orionblastar »

Zarel wrote: post #221
orionblastar wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you I did not know. Someone recommended it to me one day as an alternative to Chrome. Iridium is this the one? https://iridiumbrowser.de/

Yep, that's the one.

Thank you. I took a big hit on posting the Iron browser, but someone has to know about it so we know it is scamware.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#310

Post by jakeogh »

trulyrandom wrote: post #197
jakeogh wrote: post #189

Gentoo: emerge layman ; laymen -a alinefr ; emerge www-client/ungoogled-chromium

Please don't recommend installing ancient versions of Chromium.

True. Bad advice on my part. For ref that gets you:

www-client/ungoogled-chromium-55.0.2883.75.1::alinefr

Really, I wish gentoo would just -9999 most everything not in the core tree. Practically every custom ebuild in my own overlay does.

Post reply on HN