Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Orion 1.0

blog.kagi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 283 posts

Re: Orion 1.0

#171

Post by inesranzo »

z64 wrote: post #77
luma wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Single word answer: trust. Y’all seem like nice people but trust isn’t automatic these days.

Trust with regards to...? Orion doesn't have any telemetry, doesn't force any updates on you, doesn't require any account. You can audit the application's behavior with standard tools to verify that it isn't "phoning home", etc., it doesn't need to be open source to do that, nor would making it open source obviate auditig the final executable anyways. What do you perceive as the risk to "trusting" Orion in this case?…

I'm assuming the people who are asking for Orion to be open source are not paying for it.

I think a blog post on Orion's transparency is enough. The fact that there is Orion+ is enough to warrant no need to have tracking or 'enshittification'.

If you like Kagi and Orion, supporting development by paying for it makes sense.

Open sourcing everything of Orion means that Orion+ will be open source which defeats the point of supporting development of Orion directly.

I've seen projects start open source, change to closed source and then add in the enshittification later. It doesn't matter if the code is 'open' the source code would eventually be unmaintained and have security holes which there is no time in the world for anyone else to maintain.

Re: Orion 1.0

#172

Post by inopinatus »

z64 wrote: post #77
luma wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Single word answer: trust. Y’all seem like nice people but trust isn’t automatic these days.

Trust with regards to...? Orion doesn't have any telemetry, doesn't force any updates on you, doesn't require any account. You can audit the application's behavior with standard tools to verify that it isn't "phoning home", etc., it doesn't need to be open source to do that, nor would making it open source obviate auditig the final executable anyways. What do you perceive as the risk to "trusting" Orion in this case?…

By pushing back on someone over trust, you’ve eliminated the interest I briefly held in evaluating Orion. It would’ve been far better to acknowledge the concern than nitpick it.

Re: Orion 1.0

#174

Post by kachapopopow »

z64 wrote: post #46
barnabee wrote: post #15

I like the direction and keep checking in on it, but while Orion remains closed source there's no chance of it ever being more than a curiosity for me.

(I work at Kagi, but do not work on Orion) There's a lot of different reasons that people ask for open sourcing of Orion / software in general; could I ask you to expand a bit more as to which issues being open source would address for you? I can assume of course, but I'd rather listen to you articulate it, even if it's usual reasons.

I think the bigger question is: why not open-source it? At bare minimum provide the debug symbols for it (even chrome provides them!).

Re: Orion 1.0

#175

Post by inesranzo »

warkdarrior wrote: post #53
z64 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I work at Kagi, but do not work on Orion) There's a lot of different reasons that people ask for open sourcing of Orion / software in general; could I ask you to expand a bit more as to which issues being open source would address for you? I can assume of course, but I'd rather listen to you articulate it, even if it's usual reasons.

Can't speak for OP, but open source allows the community to check for spyware inserted to exfil data to the company and its partners.

Why would and what incentive does Kagi have to put 'spyware' in a browser?

Re: Orion 1.0

#176

Post by cipehr »

inopinatus wrote: post #172
z64 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trust with regards to...? Orion doesn't have any telemetry, doesn't force any updates on you, doesn't require any account. You can audit the application's behavior with standard tools to verify that it isn't "phoning home", etc., it doesn't need to be open source to do that, nor would making it open source obviate auditig the final executable anyways. What do you perceive as the risk to "trusting" Orion in this case?…

By pushing back on someone over trust, you’ve eliminated the interest I briefly held in evaluating Orion. It would’ve been far better to acknowledge the concern than nitpick it.

What? Since when was asking questions to clarify someones position considered "pushing back?"

Can you help me understand what about the questions make you uncomfortable?

I am completely unaffiliated with Kagi. I find it concerning that we've come to a world were we can't ask questions without it being taken as something hostile to the person/people/idea being questioned. Is that not what science is?

Re: Orion 1.0

#177

Post by inopinatus »

cipehr wrote: post #176
inopinatus wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By pushing back on someone over trust, you’ve eliminated the interest I briefly held in evaluating Orion. It would’ve been far better to acknowledge the concern than nitpick it.

What? Since when was asking questions to clarify someones position considered "pushing back?" Can you help me understand what about the questions make you uncomfortable? I am completely unaffiliated with Kagi. I find it concerning that we've come to a world were we can't ask questions without it being taken as something hostile to the person/people/idea being questioned. Is that not what science is?

If you don’t think “you can just audit the binary with tools” is pushing back, then I don’t know what is, and especially so when you’ve framed the invitation with “I'd rather listen”.

I’m reminded of the number of times I’ve had vendors sit across the table from me and argue that our fixed requirements for are just a preference or a nice-to-have. This generally doesn’t bode well for their prospects.

Re: Orion 1.0

#178

Post by inesranzo »

z64 wrote: post #77
luma wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Single word answer: trust. Y’all seem like nice people but trust isn’t automatic these days.

Trust with regards to...? Orion doesn't have any telemetry, doesn't force any updates on you, doesn't require any account. You can audit the application's behavior with standard tools to verify that it isn't "phoning home", etc., it doesn't need to be open source to do that, nor would making it open source obviate auditig the final executable anyways. What do you perceive as the risk to "trusting" Orion in this case?…

I think Kagi / Orion should go down the independent auditor route like TrailOfBits, Cure53 and others.

That way the software would be audited and it doesn't have to be open source.

Re: Orion 1.0

#179

Post by chrisweekly »

sedatk wrote: post #156

Reportedly, current desktop OS marketshare[1] is: - 66% Windows - 18% MacOS - 3% Linux Right now, I can't try out Orion as one of the 66%. [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide...

A large % of desktop Windows installations are on employer-owned/managed hardware. And the % of users who are interested in trying newer alternate browsers and/or care about privacy also skews heavily away from Windows. So it might be more rational than it first seems.

Re: Orion 1.0

#180

Post by 0_gravitas »

sedatk wrote: post #163
zero0529 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean they say in the article that the have started on the windows version and are aiming for late 2026

I know, the prioritization just looks counter-intuitive to me, especially if you make money primarily from subscribers.

Well, paying money for consumer apps/services (besides games) has always seemed a bit more normalized in the iOS ecosystem, and I imagine it must be a _somewhat_ simpler interface than the lovecruftian monolith of windows-N

saying this as a Linux user, I've never owned an apple device in my life (nor do I want to)

Post reply on HN