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

311–320 of 326 posts

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#311

Post by medgno »

noir_lord wrote: post #244
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.

Funnily enough I noticed this just the other day. On https://browserbench.org/Speedometer2.0/ (usual benchmark caveats apply) Chrome scored 68.7 and FF scored 50. That was on Fedora 28 on a ThinkPad (i7-7700HQ), I was surprised at the delta between the two tbh.

On an iPhone 8+ with iOS 12.0, I got 93.

I'm only posting because the plural of anecdote is data.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#312

Post by Tor3 »

mathnmusic wrote: post #234
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…

Must I also keep the TV un-muted and watch the advertisements?

I heard an interview with an advertiser where the advertiser actually claimed that you don't have the right to go to the kitchen during advertisting breaks.

Some minds are just completely warped.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#313

Post by nvarsj »

mosselman wrote: post #241
dedsm wrote: post #213

Since quantum arrived, firefox developer edition is my browser of choice, and with the containers functionality it checks all my marks.

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.

Ditto. I spent about 6 months using Quantum on Linux. While it's a lot faster than old Firefox, it's still got a lot of issues - random crashes, random hangs, high memory and cpu usage. I got so frustrated, I decided to go back despite my privacy concerns. Unfortunately, nothing comes close to Chromium on Linux.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#314

Post by iv597 »

mosselman wrote: post #305
fulafel wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The part that shipped was Electrolysis which splits the formerly giant-single-processed Firefox into a set of 1-9 processes which work as task pools for tabs. Locking one tab hard will lock only that tab, and any others sharing that Electrolysis worker I believe.

The new upcoming part is Servo, the rendering engine written in Rust.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#315

Post by yuhong »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #145
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…

> 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,…

Part of the problem is that the entire debt-based economy is based on extracting more dollars from consumers.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#316

Post by fulafel »

mosselman wrote: post #305
fulafel wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

To try out the new engine, turn on webrender in the nightly about:config.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#317

Post by shawn »

dang wrote: post #307
shawn wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

You say my words are misleading...

This deserves a thorough rebuttal, but it's late. In the meantime: Actually, this is a ban. You have this habit of reframing words to mean the exact opposite of commonly-accepted terms. Hell, the definition of "probation" is "the release of an offender from detention, subject to a period of good behavior under supervision." Note the word "release," not "imprison."

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.

That's not an explanation, Dan. Those are labels that you use to sweep under the rug what you wish you didn't have to deal with. It's very easy to explain to someone what they did wrong: Quote them, and say "This is not okay, because . Would you please stop doing this?"

Obviously, you could pull quotes from my recent comment history. But my recent comment history was to catch your attention and demand that you give some minimum form of explanation, like "You are rate limited for two months. Check back then." Even the most trollish of trolls get this courtesy, but I do not. And when I ask for it, I'm ignored. When I demand it, I'm banned until the new year.

This is the tedious back and forth. Can't we see eye to eye? You want me to act a certain way, and I have given you every indication that I will act that way if only I could understand what you want. You use labels like "off-topicness, drama, and troll topics," when from my point of view most other users are talking about these same topics and engaging in some spirited and interesting conversation.

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.

I don't want to cause you trouble. But I also didn't pick this fight.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#318

Post by orionblastar »

h1d wrote: post #185
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

Why would you post a link to a software with 3 news in the last 9 years? Are you affiliated? All their tweets seem like just version bump of base Chromium.

I've seen the error of my ways. I thought they were just behind the curve a bit. I did not know it was scamware.

No I am not affiliated.

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#319

Post by ktpsns »

I love the concept of the fingerprinting deception features

  --fingerprinting-canvas-measuretext-noise
  --fingerprinting-canvas-image-data-noise
  --fingerprinting-client-rects-noise
I wonder whether we can get similar features in Mozilla Firefox or regular Chromium? Probably with an extension? Is anybody aware of something like that? Or does it really need to be baked into the core of the browser?

Re: Modifications to Google Chromium for removing Google integration

#320

Post by daxorid »

shawn wrote: post #73
sctb wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be really great if you could follow the guidelines instead of posting like this. Would you please? We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18053831 .

It would be great, wouldn't it? That sounds delightful, and I would be happy to. Just one quick question: Why was my account rate limited solely for commenting – substantively, on-topic, and in an intellectually gratifying way – about incels? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18012416 Why was this thread collapsed solely for saying "I only see depressed men on /r/braincels, not really much hatred?" https://news.yc…

Thank you for your contributions to this site, Shawn. The thoughtcrime enforcement is unfortunate. There are plenty who silently agree with you, but are afraid to even so much as upvote for obvious reasons. Thanks again.
Post reply on HN