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

UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 441 posts

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#301

Post by majewsky »

AgentME wrote: post #93
technion wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about "Internet Explorer", is that using IE Edge, I often run into websites that demand I "Upgrade" to Chrome and won't let me use them. Fudging the user agent however, allows that website to work perfectly fine. Not testing in IE is one thing. Presenting an nonintrusive message warning you don't test in IE is another. Paying money to advertise your website, then, when I click your link, greeting me with a…

For a few months now, Bank of America's site has been including a giant alert at the top suggesting that I use a supported browser, such as Firefox, Chrome, or IE. ... Except I'm already using Firefox. I'm not customizing the user agent or anything.

Maybe their regex checks for Firefox on Windows and you're on some other OS?

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#302

Post by bad_user »

LinuxFreedom wrote: post #299
bad_user wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Firefox violates user privacy since years by allowing long term tracking cookies to be saved by default without asking the user. This statement doesn't make sense. All cookies can be tracking cookies and for example all session cookies are tracking cookies by definition. Assuming for the sake of argument that you're referring to third-party tracking cookies, such as those from Google Analytics, or Facebook, this is…

Denying facts and calling me silly are both not convincing arguments. I will ask you to repeat that insult when we meet in meatspace one day. About your fact denial: Firefox does save cookies forever by default without asking users for permission about that, what enables tracking them forever. This is the opposite of proactive privacy. This is factually true. It is not possible to "untrue" this fact. Everybody can ch…

You're building a straw man. I never denied that Firefox doesn't block cookies, I only questioned whether that makes sense to do by default. Go over that text and read it again.

> I will ask you to repeat that insult when we meet in meatspace one day.

That was not a personal insult, I was just criticizing your ideas. However I'll gladly meet with you and if I think you're stupid, I'll say so in your face.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#303

Post by heroprotagonist »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #47
sunnyps wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because it's not a Chromium bug. You should file feedback with the product you're using, most (all?) Google products have a way of doing this.

I am pretty sure the only way to send feedback to the Chrome team, other than the Chromium bug tracker (which is pretty much the same people), is to send feedback from within Chrome. Obviously, I don't have Chrome, since my issue is them pestering me to install Chrome. Which I'm not going to do. On the other hand, if Google wants to prevent their reputation from sinking to the level of "install the Ask Toolbar", one…

Just to clarify, the product you should be reporting this on is Google Search, or whatever site you're trying to use the browser on that's giving you the annoying reminder. Not the browser itself.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#304

Post by lorenzhs »

kuschku wrote: post #295
lorenzhs wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, seems like it: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/blob/master/re... and https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/commit/9163f6e... and https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/blob/master/re... That is a very bad idea. I sympathize with the idea of the project, but please think twice before meddling in security things. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9779990 I filed an issue to exp…

Then run your own safe browsing list. Connecting to a foreign company in a country that directly threatened you with invasion and relying on that for webbrowsing is not acceptable.

Well and how would I go about that? Your suggestion doesn't make any sense because it's not viable.

There's a setting to disable SafeBrowsing in Chromium, too. You can just disable that. But force-disabling it is dangerous.

I'm not sure what your point you're trying to make with the invasion comment.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#305

Post by lorenzhs »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #264
lorenzhs wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, seems like it: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/blob/master/re... and https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/commit/9163f6e... and https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/blob/master/re... That is a very bad idea. I sympathize with the idea of the project, but please think twice before meddling in security things. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9779990 I filed an issue to exp…

I have no interest in my urls being sent to google for "security checking" (I am aware of the hashing)

Then you can disable SafeBrowsing in Chromium's settings. My point is that disabling it without warning users about the risks of doing so is a bad idea. If you make an informed decision to disable it, I won't try to stop you.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#306

Post by Musonius »

ux-app wrote: post #120
callahad wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can isolate that DOM performance bottleneck or point me to a live example, I'm happy to pare it down to a minimal test case and make sure it gets fixed. (We have some enormous architectural changes inbound which should help, but I'd still love to make sure we have a test to prevent regressing)

unfortunately for Firefox, performance issues are a case of death by a thousand cuts. Here's a product that I'm working on https://www.ux-app.com/dev/editor?m=trial In Chrome it's buttery smooth on any decent computer made in the past 5 or 6 years. In Firefox it's usable on a powerful computer, but notably worse than Chrome. On an under powered laptop Chrome is still very usable, not quite 60fps, but probably 30-40fp…

That's a pretty niche issue though, Firefox is much faster web browsing and uses far less resources than Chrome.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#307

Post by genericacct »

eloston wrote: post #66

Hey guys, I'm the developer. I was really surprised to see the number of stars on GitHub suddenly skyrocket, and I think I found why. Thank you all for your interest in my project! Feel free to make an issue (for questions, suggestions, or bug reports) or a pull request anytime. I might respond to a few more comments here before calling it a day.

Great project! If you could look into making ARM/raspbian build available I would be superhappy..

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#308

Post by Ruud-v-A »

noir_lord wrote: post #294
nikcub wrote: post #208

Removing Google's binary blobs is mitigating one issue, but replacing it with an entire binary blog from an anonymous github user might be introducing new ones. On that note - can you tell us more about the project? ie. if you plan on keeping this updated long terms (i've watched a lot of promising chromium forks fade after an initial big splash), what your plans are, if you'll you accept contributions, how the binar…

That kind of browser sounds useful, more so particulary on mobile devices Chrome/Android/Google is incredibly 'sticky' in that it tries to quietly log you in all the damn time.

In what sense? I’m using Chrome Beta on Android, and I don’t recall being prompted to log in. Perhaps there was such a prompt during initial setup, but it has never tried to log me in quietly since.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#309

Post by RandomlyGen »

comex wrote: post #81
eloston wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is a lazy way of stopping requests. I also modified Iridium's "trk" scheme code to pick up domains ending in qjz9zk so I can notify the user.

Does qjz9zk have any significance? It seems a little elaborate for a fake domain :)

It seems like the developer mashed the keyboard.

Re: UnGoogled Chromium: Chromium with enhanced privacy, control and transparency

#310

Post by _euvw »

Ruud-v-A wrote: post #308
noir_lord wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That kind of browser sounds useful, more so particulary on mobile devices Chrome/Android/Google is incredibly 'sticky' in that it tries to quietly log you in all the damn time.

In what sense? I’m using Chrome Beta on Android, and I don’t recall being prompted to log in. Perhaps there was such a prompt during initial setup, but it has never tried to log me in quietly since.

On a fresh Android, at first boot, it will ask you if you want to sync stuff. I always choose 'no'.

I then proceed onto the settings app, into 'accounts'. There, I tap 'Google' and lo and behold: App-data, Calendar, Contacts, Google Fit Data and People details are all ticked to sync.

I turn them off.

Then I open the default browser. It logs me into Google, by default. I have to explicitly tell it not to.

Google really really wants users to be logged in. That is my experience anyway.

Post reply on HN