[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:

> 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

> > 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

> 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]

> ciao

[1] off to soon, which has had google provided beer for
the last few years. :)

Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
No, I won't join your social networking group

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]