[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Status of google chrome and chromium
From: |
Karl Goetz |
Subject: |
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Status of google chrome and chromium |
Date: |
Fri, 8 Jan 2010 01:03:49 +1030 |
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 09:00:42 +0100
jaromil <address@hidden> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
>
> > Guess I'll stick my oar in here.
>
> hola Karl! :)
Hey mate.
> > > more on Chromium / Iron:
>
> On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 10:48:26AM +1030, Karl Goetz wrote:
> > I forwarded a message about this onto someone from this list on the
> > 4th, guess I should have sent it here directly.
>
> yes please! place feels cozy enough and very useful indeed.
Definitely :)
> > I saw the link a few days after it was published (benefit of knowing
> > a chromium hacker ;)), so...
>
> there is ppl around getting interested, quite natural as Firefox seems
> to have passed its best days by now.
The greatest irony for me is Google (apparently) provides > 3/4 of
Mozilla corps funding. Wonder what'll happen to them now.
> > I exported chromium git (well... svn, but my mates stuck it in git
> > for his work) at various points, and diffed against Iron.
>
> oh nice! is that a public git repo? i developed allergy to svn...
No its not, and its ... quite large.
du -sh public_html/sourcecheckouts/chromium/
3.2G public_html/sourcecheckouts/chromium/
Even assuming some space is lost to arm porting, thats a bit directory.
> > du -hs Desktop/rev-iron-vs-chromium-*
> > 365M Desktop/rev-iron-vs-chromium-130b4651d.diff
> > 351M Desktop/rev-iron-vs-chromium-344bc62c.diff
> > 365M Desktop/rev-iron-vs-chromium-34b31da1.diff
> > 394M Desktop/rev-iron-vs-chromium-a615c2e8.diff
>
> > These are reasonably average sizes. Smallest I got (about 8.5
> > million lines) was 340MB, largest about 500MB (15 million
> > lines). The numeric id's before .diff are the git commit.
>
> gosh.
Yeah. Another opinion would be great, but it does require a lot of
time.
> > I'm told putting Chromium into incognito mode does most of what we
> > want, and its possible they would accept (build time?) options for
> > the others.
>
> yep, build time opts would be sweet.
>
> but i'm not satisfied by incognito mode, privacy is a fundamental
> right and not an option: the "incognito switch" commodifies what needs
> to be there by default, while in fact profiling should be an *agreed*
Just so I'm sure what you're saying: You say that being able to turn
*off* "incognito" is ok, as long as "incognito" is the default
behaviour?
> commodity. turning the whole thing around is a very dangerous step
> while the user's perception of privacy is decaying...
yes, it is.
> Ali wrote:
>
> > Even if the Iron developer was serious with his scheme in that log,
> > in my opinion, it doesn't put his fork in a worse position than
> > neither Google Chrome nor Chromium both of which come with more
> > privacy/ethics problems.
>
> i also don't regard Iron's developer stance at forking as bad per-se,
I would consider forking without attempting to work with upstream first
bad, no question. (I don't consider slapping some new branding on top
to be a fork).
> but we need to rationalise these privacy/ethics problems (anyone has a
> summary and concrete analysis?) then draw some lines of actions which
This would be good - The web post that started this thread, and the
previous conversations about chromium on this list would be a good
starting point.
> can include contribution and/or forking - re-branding can't be bad if
> it gets you some beers, since we don't get any from Google anyway.
Speak for yourself :p [1]
kk
>
>
> ciao
[1] off to linux.conf.au soon, which has had google provided beer for
the last few years. :)
--
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature