Live data from Hacker News

No to Chrome

notochrome.org

11–20 of 319 posts

Re: No to Chrome

#11
post #9

I have been using Firefox for several years now. Energy management is still an unsolved problem on MacOS (Firefox 71 on 10.14.6). They have been making improvements in the last several releases, but "Avg Energy Impact" remains around 40 for me (when browsing web pages, higher when streaming video). I also noticed how different colors are between Chrome and Firefox. That becomes more obvious in the dark mode. https://…

Try Safari and/or Brave

Re: No to Chrome

#12
Too late, it's the only good browser engine left.

I've given up waiting for firefox to get their act together. Instead they pay people to play with VRML and WebVR. After wasting something like a decade trying to be a cell phone operating system (FirefoxOS? WTF?)

And they continue to be actively hostile to a "libfirefox.so" existing. So awesome projects like qutebrowser have only one choice, the Chromium Embedded Framework, which is what QtWebEngine is based on (if you think Vimium-FF is an alternative you haven't used qutebrowser).

We have already lost.

Re: No to Chrome

#13
post #11
post #9

I have been using Firefox for several years now. Energy management is still an unsolved problem on MacOS (Firefox 71 on 10.14.6). They have been making improvements in the last several releases, but "Avg Energy Impact" remains around 40 for me (when browsing web pages, higher when streaming video). I also noticed how different colors are between Chrome and Firefox. That becomes more obvious in the dark mode. https://…

Try Safari and/or Brave

Brave is Chrome(ium)

Re: No to Chrome

#15
post #11
post #9

I have been using Firefox for several years now. Energy management is still an unsolved problem on MacOS (Firefox 71 on 10.14.6). They have been making improvements in the last several releases, but "Avg Energy Impact" remains around 40 for me (when browsing web pages, higher when streaming video). I also noticed how different colors are between Chrome and Firefox. That becomes more obvious in the dark mode. https://…

Try Safari and/or Brave

I was using Safari up until they have yanked support for extensions. The web is unusable, outright hostile place without a proper script blocker. I can tolerate a lot of things, but browsing the web without uBlockOrigin isn't one of them.

Re: No to Chrome

#16
post #15
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try Safari and/or Brave

I was using Safari up until they have yanked support for extensions. The web is unusable, outright hostile place without a proper script blocker. I can tolerate a lot of things, but browsing the web without uBlockOrigin isn't one of them.

Then go with Brave. They stripped out the Google bits, and they won't remove support for the current uBlock Origin ad blocker.

Re: No to Chrome

#17
post #15
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try Safari and/or Brave

I was using Safari up until they have yanked support for extensions. The web is unusable, outright hostile place without a proper script blocker. I can tolerate a lot of things, but browsing the web without uBlockOrigin isn't one of them.

But Safari still supports extensions, surely? I’m using it with extensions, there are not stories I can see about them removing support, and their Développement pages are still up.

Re: No to Chrome

#18
post #8
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No to Chrome is an alliance led by Berlin based Eduardo Smith and UK based James Mullarkey.

Berlin based? Where's the impressum then?

Isn't that only required for a commercial website?

Re: No to Chrome

#19
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was using Safari up until they have yanked support for extensions. The web is unusable, outright hostile place without a proper script blocker. I can tolerate a lot of things, but browsing the web without uBlockOrigin isn't one of them.

But Safari still supports extensions, surely? I’m using it with extensions, there are not stories I can see about them removing support, and their Développement pages are still up.

Their apis only support declarative static blocking lists. No heuristics, right click to block, IAB ad size detection, etc. Similar to what chrome plans to do with manifest v3.

Advertisers are already figuring out how to get around that. CNAME cloacking, proxying with same domain, etc.

Re: No to Chrome

#20
> “Setting up such a “Google free” phone requires a significant amount of time, dedication, and skill (not to mention a personal server), definitively far beyond to what I’d trust my mother to comprehend.” [0]

@ project owner: I'd consider changing (or replacing) the quote to use age and gender neutral language; e.g. "[...], definitively far beyond to what I’d trust the average user to comprehend".

[0] https://notochrome.org/google-products/android-mobile-os/

Edit: His mother might not be able to root her phone, but my friend D.'s might be forking LineageOS for fun - so please don't generalize.

Post reply on HN