_______               __                   _______
       |   |   |.---.-..----.|  |--..-----..----. |    |  |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
       |       ||  _  ||  __||    < |  -__||   _| |       ||  -__||  |  |  ||__ --|
       |___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__|   |__|____||_____||________||_____|
                                                             on Gopher (inofficial)
   URI Visit Hacker News on the Web
       
       
       COMMENT PAGE FOR:
   URI   Google Chromium, sans integration with Google
   DIR   text version
       
       
        bigyellow wrote 2 days ago:
        No information on how it's secured, audited or even considerations
        about software lifecycle. This project is either straight up
        compromised or begging to be - the browser equivalent of rolling your
        own crypto.
       
        mangecoeur wrote 2 days ago:
        I was hoping this would just redirect to Firefox :P
       
        a_imho wrote 2 days ago:
        Isn't Chrome supposed to be based on Chromium? Why does one need to
        ungoogle it?
       
        denkmoon wrote 2 days ago:
        Why bother "de-googling" if you're still eating from Google's hand
        anyway? You get to support the Chromium/Blink hegemony _and_ the warm
        fuzzies that you're not sharing your data with Google (because you're
        technically adept enough to search this out, while supporting the
        propagation of a technology which disenfranchises non-technical users'
        privacy).
       
          betwixthewires wrote 2 days ago:
          Because the only alternative is Firefox.
       
          tgv wrote 2 days ago:
          I use Chromium for testing and the occasional website that doesn’t
          work on Firefox. I’m not going to install Chrome for that.
       
        est wrote 2 days ago:
        Someone please integrate about://net-internals back to local browser.
       
        lobocinza wrote 2 days ago:
        I would use it if it was in the Arch repo. I do not have the patience
        and the adequate hardware to build it in a frequent basis and ignoring
        all trust issues I do not have the patience sort through issues present
        on random builds.
       
        waynesonfire wrote 2 days ago:
        Thank you for this project. Brave browsers feature set and roadmap has
        been off the rocker for a while and i will be happily dropping it for
        this.
       
        0xdeadb00f wrote 2 days ago:
        Id say don't use this. Their patches cripple many of Chromium's
        security features.
       
          varenc wrote 2 days ago:
          Can you expand on that?
       
            0xdeadb00f wrote 2 days ago:
            Namely, there's quite a but of lag in updates. I think the reason
            why that's bad should be apparent. They also don't build with
            control-flow integrity enabled [0].
            
            They don't enable the is_official_build flag which enables some
            security features (including CFI), and disables some debug stuff
            that a regular user shouldn't be using [1].
            
            0: [1] 1:
            
   URI      [1]: https://qua3k.github.io/ungoogled/
   URI      [2]: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/chromium-dev/c/...
       
        mhio wrote 2 days ago:
         [1] provides a collection of Chromium builds for different
        architectures, including Eloston ungoogled.
        
   URI  [1]: https://chromium.woolyss.com/
       
        ivanmontillam wrote 2 days ago:
        Now this is one I'd use, but I'm already satisfied with Firefox.
        
        Firefox for Android could use some improvements, when I switched from
        Chrome, the downgraded experience felt almost immediately, but you get
        used to that to the point you don't notice.
       
          karussell wrote 2 days ago:
          What exactly do you mean? Speed?
       
            ivanmontillam wrote 2 days ago:
            Scroll speed is noticeable (it's not as smooth) when you're used to
            Mobile Chrome, but you get used to it. I don't feel it anymore.
            
            Some UX shortcuts or improvements could have been used as well
            (e.g. the "Sync" button for the tabs in other devices instead of
            syncing without asking, or... the weird zoom it does into a form
            field when I'm about to type in it).
       
          jptech wrote 2 days ago:
          Problem I have is MS Teams doesn't work on FF. I usw Brave as a
          substitute for that.
       
          amelius wrote 2 days ago:
          What I love about Firefox on Android: sending pages to my other
          devices. So when I see an interesting webpage on the subway, I can
          send it to my office computer and read it later.
       
            RamRodification wrote 2 days ago:
            Any privacy concerns there? I am assuming that it is sent through
            Mozilla's systems.
       
              amelius wrote 2 days ago:
               [1] > Firefox Sync by default protects all your synced data so
              Mozilla can’t read it. We built Sync this way because we put
              user privacy first. In this post, we take a closer look at some
              of the technical design choices we made and why.
              
   URI        [1]: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2018/11/firefox-sync-privacy/
       
                RamRodification wrote 1 day ago:
                Nice. Thanks
       
        turminal wrote 3 days ago:
        If you want to make a statement, just don't use chromium in any form.
        Use Firefox,  even if it's slightly worse for you.
       
        fsflover wrote 3 days ago:
        Relevant discussion about Firefox:
        
   URI  [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29378307
       
        etqwzutewzu wrote 3 days ago:
        It's called Edge.
       
          bellyfullofbac wrote 3 days ago:
          It's free, just 24 interest-free payments of $0!
       
          gigel82 wrote 3 days ago:
          It looked good initially and I actually used it for a while, but it's
          scammy AF now with data siphoning, forced usage, weird integrations
          with lenders, etc.
          
          I'd much rather trust Firefox.
       
        snihalani wrote 3 days ago:
        I had trouble downloading chrome extensions. sad
       
          propogandist wrote 2 days ago:
          install (sideload) the extension below [1] and set the chrome flags
          noted in the readme. It will provide a near native chrome extension
          installation experience.
          
          workarounds to install extensions were a major PITA till I found this
          
   URI    [1]: https://github.com/NeverDecaf/chromium-web-store
       
        putlake wrote 3 days ago:
        PSA: Please don't download random binaries. Ungoogled Chrome already
        exists. It's called Microsoft Edge. And it has a cousin called Brave.
       
          propogandist wrote 2 days ago:
          >It's called Microsoft Edge
          
          it's called telemetry ridden trash, that's shoved down users throats
          even for those that don't want it:
          
   URI    [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/15/22782802/microsoft-block...
       
          Tempest1981 wrote 2 days ago:
          So Edge doesn't have any telemetry? (Honest question)
       
            mhio wrote 2 days ago:
            Edge does have telemetry [0], that's pretty much a given in any
            Microsoft product.
            
            The control panel doesn't provide a way to disable diagnostic
            telemetry, but it can be turned off via group policy. Then there's
            more options for MS service in "Privacy, search and services" to be
            disabled.
            
            Edge is more like altgoogled than ungoogled.
            
            [0]
            
   URI      [1]: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/deployedge/microsoft-edge...
       
          lvass wrote 3 days ago:
          Poe's law, my friend.
       
            amelius wrote 2 days ago:
            That law is silly because you should always verify statements made
            on the internet.
       
              lvass wrote 2 days ago:
              It's not about the validity of the content, but whether the
              writer believes in what he stated.
       
        LeoPanthera wrote 3 days ago:
        If you have Homebrew on your Mac, this is available by installing
        "eloston-chromium".
       
        kccqzy wrote 3 days ago:
        What's surprising to me is that this product not only removes Google
        services integration, but also adds rather opinionated "Enhancing
        Features" of its own. Many of these are pretty good, but not everyone
        will like all of them. I, for example, doesn't like the "Force all
        pop-ups into tabs" change.
        
   URI  [1]: https://ungoogled-software.github.io/features/
       
          thumbellina wrote 2 days ago:
          Yeah...
          
          Guix does not distribute Firefox and instead distributes GNU Icecat,
          which comes with the unremovable libreJS and an extension to make
          UPS's site work without JavaScript. [1] Uhh... thanks
          
   URI    [1]: https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/
       
          jklinger410 wrote 2 days ago:
          The privacy features are why I won't use it. Same with librewolf. I
          am sick and tired of all of these web breaking alterations being the
          only independent forks available.
       
            fsflover wrote 2 days ago:
            In IceCat disabling those additional features is a click away. And
            it won’t demand that you enable them back.
       
        GhettoComputers wrote 3 days ago:
        There’s been a glitch that breaks extensions and stops pages loading
        if you have an adblocker. I stopped using it.
       
        mvexel wrote 3 days ago:
        Is this browser preferable, from a privacy perspective, over using
        regular Chrome without signing in to Google, disabling any built-in
        convenience services (such as Safe Browsing) that phone home, and
        switching your default search engine to DDG?
       
          kccqzy wrote 3 days ago:
          You can disable Safe Browsing in a regular build of Google Chrome.
          But besides Safe Browsing there are other things that are harder to
          disable, if your goal is to make your browser never talk back to
          Google.
          
          I took a look at [1] and saw some surprising removals.
          
   URI    [1]: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/tree/master/pa...
       
        ssss11 wrote 3 days ago:
        This or something similar I believe is the best Chrome competitor
        option in the near future. As others have commented it would need to be
        run by a group that can consistently and quickly put out new versions
        to correspond to new Chromium versions.
       
        gigel82 wrote 3 days ago:
        The problem with this is updates: there is no trusted publisher of
        binaries, and even if you pick one person to trust, oftentimes builds
        are 6 - 8 weeks out of date with Chromium which means you're
        susceptible to all the published zero-days.
        
        Tried building it myself and it takes 4 hours on my 32-core 5950x, and
        you still depend on someone actually porting a version bump because
        their patches need to be regenerated for every new chromium build.
        
        I like the idea of it in principle; if someone donates some CI time and
        we get official CI builds, plus getting more active with picking up new
        builds it'll be a real contender. I'll stick with Firefox for now.
       
          cmrdporcupine wrote 3 days ago:
          Because I previously worked on the Chromium codebase at Google I have
          a 'specialist' dev workstation, an HP Z840 dual 18 core Xeon with
          256GB of RAM. And that's a model from many years ago now, the newer
          specialist workstations are even heftier. To work on chrome @ Google
          you absolutely need one.
          
          That said, if you're using cached builds via goma and have a nice fat
          pipe it can go quite fast without making your machine sweat much.
          
          It's an absolutely massive code base. I wish I could explain why, but
          it is. No single part sticks out as bloat to me. I could never get
          CLion (among other tools) to index it properly.
       
            heavyset_go wrote 3 days ago:
            How long does it take to build Chromium with a machine like that?
       
              cmrdporcupine wrote 2 days ago:
              I was building Chromecast most often, not Chromium itself. So
              can't really recall. For Chromecast, from clean, it was around 10
              minutes.
       
                Apofis wrote 2 days ago:
                That sounded pretty reasonable until I realized you were
                talking about that beast of a workstation that can easily be
                between $25,000-80,000.
                
                Pfft.... 10 minutes to compile, no sweat, not even enough time
                to brew and drink a tea/coffee.
       
                  ma2rten wrote 2 days ago:
                  According to [1] it would be around 8k.
                  
   URI            [1]: https://zworkstations.com/products/z840/
       
                    akiselev wrote 2 days ago:
                    On the bottom row to the left of the price when viewed with
                    desktop resolution: Condition: Refurbished
                    
                    That's $8,000 for a refurbished computer with a processor
                    that was launched in 2013.
       
                    cmrdporcupine wrote 2 days ago:
                    Not 5 years ago when it was first provisioned for me.
       
            gigel82 wrote 3 days ago:
            Maybe someone can create a Goma-equivalent for ungoogled chromium,
            but it's the project's explicit goal to not depend on Google stuff
            (they actually apply hundreds of patches to the code to remove
            built-in google service references) so a Google-supplied Goma cache
            won't be of much use to this project's builds.
       
              cmrdporcupine wrote 3 days ago:
              These days I work on a team at Google that provides distributed
              build infrastructure for non-Google3 projects, including goma.
              But unfortunately it's not available to the outside world,
              despite being built with that in mind.
       
          trucekill wrote 3 days ago:
          > 32-core 5950x
          
          damn, that's twice as many cores as a regular 5950x
       
            gigel82 wrote 3 days ago:
            Got the special sku... :)
            
            Threads, vCores, etc. ... used to working in VMs not bare metal;
            but you got the point.
       
          lvass wrote 3 days ago:
          It's packaged by Nix, should be more convenient.
       
            gigel82 wrote 3 days ago:
            In my case I was running Windows, but even the Linux binaries are
            based on Chromium 91 (from back in May).
       
              heavyset_go wrote 3 days ago:
              Flathub has it for Linux based on version 96.x.
       
              lvass wrote 3 days ago:
              96 in Nixpkgs right now.
       
          systemvoltage wrote 3 days ago:
          4 hours on a 32-core modern CPU? If this isn’t the strongest
          indictment of browsers getting out of control with regards to
          features and complexity, I don’t know what is.
          
          Browsers are a window into the internet. Browsers should be simple
          enough to be implemented by a single person in a week.
          
          I want the web to be re-constructed from scratch starting with the
          TCP/IP stack all the way to gifs with modern hindsight.
       
            amarshall wrote 2 days ago:
            FWIW the 5950X has 16 cores (32 threads), not 32 cores as the
            poster indicated.
       
            3np wrote 2 days ago:
            You may want to check out Urbit. It’s philosophy is not far from
            yours.
            
            For something less radical, Gemini
       
            omoikane wrote 2 days ago:
            If you just want a subset of the internet, Lynx builds in under a
            minute.
       
            1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote 3 days ago:
            "Browsers should be simple enough to be implemented by a single
            person in a week."
            
            They are.  It all depends on who defines what a "browser" is and
            what it can do.
            
            The browser I use as a "daily driver" is a 1.3M static binary.    It
            is 5.7M of C code, including graphics stuff I do not utilise.  It
            compiles in under a minute on a low-end computer.
            
            This browser allows me to "browse" hypertext.  It displays HTML
            tables beautifully in textmode.  I can download files.    I can save
            HTML as formatted text.  It supports FTP.  The program has various
            settings for cache size, character set and so forth.  I can script
            the browser using tmux.
            
            This browser is all I really need.^1  I read HTML then decide if I
            want to download or save something.  Simple.  What else is there,
            really.  When I want to run programs I do not do that using this
            browser.  I have separate compilers and interpeters for that.  When
            I want to listen to audio or watch video, I do not try to listen or
            watch using this browser. I have separate programs for that.  And
            so on.    I do not try to live inside a single pogram.  In every case
            of a non HTML-reading/saving or www/ftp browsing task, the separate
            programs do a better job than the browser could.  If this sounds
            something like the "UNIX principle" maybe that is not a
            coincidence.
            
            Sure, we can take each of those individual programs and integrate
            them into a single program, and still call it a "browser" but why
            would anyone want to do that.^2  What is that concept in
            programming called "separation of concerns".  Someone once called
            it "an ordering of one's thoughts".  When people use browsers
            written by web advertising-supported organisations, then the
            "organisation of thoughts" is going to revolve around advertising
            (requisite tracking and personal data/metadata collection) and how
            to integrate it into the browser.  When I use the text-only browser
            I choose, the ordering of thoughts is quite different.    I see no
            advertising.  Ever.  I still consume the same amount of "content",
            maybe even more because this 1.3M browser is quite fast.
            
            1. Major corporations operating on the web today, e.g., banks, can
            obviously force people to use certain browsers for business and
            important personal matters.  For recreational web use, however,
            people can choose any browser.
            
            2. The answer is not "For everyone's convenience and free
            enjoyment."  That is why we have people trying to "un-google".
       
              1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote 2 days ago:
              M stands for MB
              
              Also probably worth mentioning that I am not always necessarily
              using the browser to retrieve the HTML I want to read, nor to
              download binary files like audio, video, PDFs, and tarballs.  I
              use other dedicated programs for that.    The browser is used just
              as much "offline" as "online".
              
              Connections from this browser go through an up-to-date
              localhost-bound forward proxy which handles any TLS verification.
               One of the obstacles to anyone writing a browser might be all
              the TLS stuff, getting it right and keeping it updated.
       
              amarshall wrote 2 days ago:
              A lot of words without saying what “this browser” is. Is it
              lynx? Something else?
       
                1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote 2 days ago:
                The browser is links, various versions of the 1.x series and
                2.x series, with various personal changes.
                
                I used lynx in the late 90s.  Honestly, as a 24/7 text-only
                browser user, I think lynx may be the worst of the text-only
                browsers.  IMO, the fact that it is so often mentioned seems to
                suggest most folks who mention it are not using it much and/or
                are unfamiliar with the full range of alternatives.
                
                Usually the only reason someone asks "what browser" is so they
                can make snide comments about it, diverting the discussion away
                from the original point, which is that there are other browsers
                like this and it is possible to write them.  As such it is
                usually against better judgment to respond.  Let's see what
                happens this time.
                
                What I prefer is not the point.  Every user is different.  The
                point is that people have written other, smaller, simpler
                browsers, I am using one, and I am able to comment here and
                read every submitted website just like anyone else who is using
                Chromium or the like to do it.
       
                  amarshall wrote 2 days ago:
                  > Usually the only reason someone asks "what browser" is so
                  they can make snide comments about it
                  
                  Far from the intent, just genuine curiosity. As you say,
                  “most…are unfamiliar with the full range of
                  alternatives”.
       
                    1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote 2 days ago:
                    Apologies for the misunderstanding.  Genuine curiousity is
                    good!  Alas, the "full range of alternatives" is not very
                    large. Nevertheless, IMHO, one can easily do better than
                    lynx.
       
                  smeyer wrote 2 days ago:
                  >Usually the only reason someone asks "what browser" is so
                  they can make snide comments about it
                  
                  I wasn't the person who asked, but I was also wondering and
                  appreciate your answer for non-snide reasons. Especially in
                  the context of the larger thread it's nice to hear what
                  people use.
       
                elteto wrote 2 days ago:
                I doubt lynx is over 5M lines of code...
       
                  amarshall wrote 2 days ago:
                  It’s not, and neither is links (both are around 165 SLOC).
                  Maybe what they meant was 5 MB of source code, but that’s
                  not right either (even compressed the links source is bigger
                  than that, though lynx isn’t, but who knows what version
                  they’re using). I dunno. Without units it’s anyone’s
                  guess.
       
            LogonType10 wrote 3 days ago:
            TCP/IP is not part of "the web".
       
              irq wrote 2 days ago:
              It’s as much a part of the web as tires are parts of a car
       
            iamstupidsimple wrote 3 days ago:
            GIFs alone would take more than a week for a single person. I think
            you are severely underestimating the necessary complexity.
       
          gruez wrote 3 days ago:
          >Tried building it myself and it takes 4 hours on my 32-core 5950x,
          
          That seems excessively long? For me it only takes around 2.5 hours on
          a 8c/16t processor. This is with optimizations enabled, with plenty
          of free ram and building on SSD.
       
            gigel82 wrote 3 days ago:
            It took 2 hours on a pristine 48-core Azure VM from start to
            finish; wrote some details here when I was playing with it: [1]
            It's likely it'll be faster if I build on bare-metal on my box;
            spun up a VM because the build does all kinds of stuff (downloads
            binaries, spits up temporaries all over the place, etc.).
            
   URI      [1]: https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium-w...
       
              gruez wrote 3 days ago:
              >pristine 48-core Azure VM
              
              1. it's actually 24 physical cores, since azure counts
              hyperthreads as "vCPUs". still, that still seems slow compared to
              my own build times.
              
              2. azure VMs have horrendous IO on the persistent data drives.
              You can probably get a small to medium speed improvement by
              moving your build to the D: drive.
       
                heavyset_go wrote 2 days ago:
                > 2. azure VMs have horrendous IO on the persistent data
                drives.
                
                This. If you want to benchmark builds on Azure, building on a
                tmpfs or ramfs will help mitigate disk IO latency, although
                tmpfs might swap.
       
        kobalsky wrote 3 days ago:
        I really hope the privacy-conscious people downloading this aren't just
        downloading these binary blobs and instead compiling it from source.
        Especially after seeing this disclaimer on their download page:
        
        >>>IMPORTANT: These binaries are provided by anyone who are willing to
        build and submit them. Because these binaries are not necessarily
        reproducible, authenticity cannot be guaranteed. For your
        consideration, each download page lists the GitHub user that submitted
        those binaries.
       
          DavideNL wrote 15 hours 16 min ago:
          > These binaries are provided by anyone
          
          I don’t think this is true for macOS? the builds seem automated…
       
          bigyellow wrote 2 days ago:
          This is the hilarious irony of this entire software project. I trust
          Google a lot more to produce a safe binary than some random internet
          stranger who promises to be good. Even if I don't ultimately trust
          Google as a software vendor, I can at least make some reasonable
          assumptions about the security of their product.
       
          thumbellina wrote 2 days ago:
          Or, more typically, the binary is built your distribution.
       
          londons_explore wrote 2 days ago:
          Chromium builds are reproducible though ..    So why isn't this
          project using that to publish hashes of valid builds?
       
          pajko wrote 2 days ago:
          The Marmaduke build might be a better alternative in this regard:
          
   URI    [1]: https://chromium.woolyss.com/
       
          anotherhue wrote 2 days ago:
          NixOS has it packaged, reproducibly I presume?
          
   URI    [1]: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/8a308775674e178495767d...
       
          tshaddox wrote 3 days ago:
          And for the precisely the same reason, I hope the privacy-conscious
          people who are compiling it from source aren't downloading their
          compilers as binary blobs!
       
            pabs3 wrote 2 days ago:
            There is a project to solve that, they aim to bootstrap an entire
            Linux distro from under 1K of machine code plus all the necessary
            source code.
            
   URI      [1]: https://bootstrappable.org/
       
            moffkalast wrote 2 days ago:
            And I sure hope they didn't download and install their OS from a
            premade image too, you really can't trust canonical and the rest of
            those gangs these days!
       
          j-james wrote 3 days ago:
          Considerably more trustworthy binaries are available for Arch,
          Debian, and Fedora through OpenSUSE's Open Build Service. Arch
          binaries are also reproducible. [1] [2]
          
   URI    [1]: https://build.opensuse.org/project/show/home:ungoogled_chrom...
   URI    [2]: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/discussions/14...
   URI    [3]: https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium-arc...
       
          marcodiego wrote 3 days ago:
          I installed it through flatpak. What is HN crowd opinion on this?
       
          Timothycquinn wrote 3 days ago:
          How hard is it to compile these days? I recall trying to build
          several years back for Electron development work on Ubuntu and it was
          a royal pain in the butt.
       
            mattowen_uk wrote 2 days ago:
            Ok, let's say I'm a tech savvy Windows user. Assuming I have
            something like Visual Studio installed, would this compile
            correctly off the bat? I doubt it. (I've not tried tbh)
            
            Personal experience, most of the source I download from GitHub
            either will straight refuse to compile in Visual Studio, or
            requires me tweaking a lot of the dependencies and stepping through
            the warnings and errors until it does.
            
            "Ah, but don't use Visual Studio" you say. "Use
            XYZ-compiler-de-jour". Right, that's now in the
            'too-hard/too-time-consuming' bucket, and I'll look for something
            else.
       
            NavinF wrote 2 days ago:
            Pretty easy if you have a reasonably fast PC (>8 cores, ideally
            HEDT/server), use one of the two popular platforms (Windows or
            Ubuntu) and don't try to outsmart the build system.
       
          bullen wrote 3 days ago:
          It's interesting the first release on that page is from 2016 and then
          the build .zip was 69MB, the last release from yesterday weighs 100MB
          compared to the official chromium which is 179MB that is alot of
          google and alot of non-google added in 5 years!
       
            NavinF wrote 2 days ago:
            I can't find a list of removed features, but I'm gonna take a wild
            guess that it includes proprietary codecs. It's the same reason why
            the chromium binaries in most distro repos are smaller than the
            official ones, but also useless for normal users that want to
            experience all content on the net.
       
          FinalBriefing wrote 3 days ago:
          Couldn't they (or someone) set up a Github Action to compile the
          project on every release?
       
            easton wrote 2 days ago:
            I forked the repo with the intention of doing this a couple months
            ago. The default Windows runner for Actions doesn’t have enough
            free disk space to compile Chromium (at least, given the build
            instructions the project provided). Given it took an hour to fail
            every time, it made trying to optimize hard and I eventually gave
            up.
       
              francisduvivier wrote 2 days ago:
              Got a link to that fork? I might want to pick that up sometime.
       
                easton wrote 2 days ago:
                 [1] isn't my original attempt (I deleted the original repo,
                oops), but I recreated pretty much where I was. GH Actions
                runners only have 14GB of usable space, and Chromium requires
                100GB or so of free space to compile on Windows apparently:
                
   URI          [1]: https://github.com/jedieaston/ungoogled-chromium-windo...
   URI          [2]: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/refs/...
       
            heavyset_go wrote 3 days ago:
            GitHub Actions free tier comes with ~34 hours of free compute time
            with 500MB storage. Pro comes with 50 hours and 1GB. Enterprise
            comes with much more. Building on Windows or macOS divides those
            compute rates by 2 and 10 respectively.
            
            For a project with frequent point releases, building Chromium via
            GitHub might require a monetary commitment.
       
              nicce wrote 3 days ago:
              Has it changed? It used to  be unlimited for open projects.
       
                heavyset_go wrote 3 days ago:
                I wasn't aware it was ever free for open projects. Reading this
                page shows that you're right[1], public repositories can use
                GitHub Actions for free.
                
   URI          [1]: https://github.com/features/actions
       
                  moffkalast wrote 2 days ago:
                  So what's stopping them?
       
                    heavyset_go wrote 2 days ago:
                    Seems like something someone with some time can make a pull
                    request for ;)
       
          iszomer wrote 3 days ago:
          Took a few hours to compile on a ryzen 2600.
          
          Worth it until the next "update", I think.
       
            londons_explore wrote 2 days ago:
            Chromium security patches usually don't require a full recompile. 
            Usually an incremental build will just take 30 seconds or so.    
            Obviously that still means you need 100GB spare for the working
            directory.
       
            Uehreka wrote 3 days ago:
            Does Chromium have `make -j$(nproc)` or equivalent? Because a few
            hours on a fairly recent processor with a whole bunch of cores
            sounds long.
       
              ori_b wrote 3 days ago:
              Chromium is big. I think the last time I looked, it's larger than
              all the BSDs combined.
       
              throwaway2077 wrote 3 days ago:
              holy shit, what did the other dude who replied to this 15 minutes
              ago do?
       
                contravariant wrote 3 days ago:
                Well going by some of their other comments, probably not
                nothing.
       
              ghoward wrote 3 days ago:
              Not GP, I am a Gentoo user that compiles ungoogled-chromium from
              source. I have a 16-core AMD CPU.
              
              Despite that, it takes 4-8 hours to compile, due to two factors:
              40,000+ separate targets, of which most are C++ files (famously
              slow to compile anyway).
              
              And yes, 40,000+ separate targets is no exaggeration; ninja's
              first run claims about 18,000 targets, and after it finishes
              those, it generates a second ninja file that has to compile
              23,000 targets.
              
              I personally think it's worth it. Others may disagree, and I
              can't blame them. I have to run it overnight.
       
                prurigro wrote 2 days ago:
                Are you building on an HDD? I went from 3-4 hours to under two
                when I switched to an SSD.
       
                  ghoward wrote 2 days ago:
                  It's off an SSD. I have an SSD for my OS, which is where
                  /var/tmp is on my machine.
       
                nicce wrote 3 days ago:
                Something is off there. I have Ryzen 3900X and it takes around
                1-1,5 hours to compile ungoogled chromium.
                
                It is really hard to keep up-to-date with security patches if
                you need to compile every few days from source with that time..
                
                Edit: Also 32GB RAM which matters
       
                  numpad0 wrote 2 days ago:
                  The fact that it takes 1.5 hours on essentially an early
                  2000s supercomputer cluster full steam ahead to compile a
                  fancy HTML viewer with integrated lightweight Java-like mini
                  script language is bonkers.
       
                    Nextgrid wrote 2 days ago:
                    I wonder how long does Java (which actually has a standard
                    library, unlike JavaScript) take to compile? Would be an
                    interesting comparison.
       
                      ghoward wrote 2 days ago:
                      Far less on my machine. I think 1 hour?
       
                    cylon13 wrote 2 days ago:
                    You may be under-appreciating just how fancy this thing is.
       
                  bee_rider wrote 2 days ago:
                  Do you have to do the make clean all, or equivalent, every
                  time? Chrome has a ton of bits and bobs built in, right? Not
                  all of which need to be updated every time (I guess?).
                  
                  I wonder how it compares to the build time of something with
                  equivalent functionality, like firefox.
       
                  ghoward wrote 2 days ago:
                  I have a 3900, no X, and 32 GB of RAM. I used to use a tmpfs,
                  but I found that the build would run out of memory.
       
                    nicce wrote 2 days ago:
                    What if you try to compile in similar way than here? [1]
                    Edit: Also, 3900 is 3900X running on eco mode (same spec
                    but half power). You might get a lot more performance by
                    tuning BIOS settings.
                    
   URI              [1]: https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUI...
       
                      ghoward wrote 2 days ago:
                      I'm not going to try to compile by hand, unfortunately. 
                      
                      I'll take a peek at the BIOS, but I'll also no good at
                      doing such things.
       
                  throwdbaaway wrote 2 days ago:
                  Here with Ryzen 5700G, it takes almost 2.5 hours to compile
                  chromium (doing one at the moment). This is with
                  /var/tmp/portage mounted on tmpfs.
       
                danaos wrote 3 days ago:
                It typically takes more than 20 hours on my dual core laptop.
                It's a pain, but once compiled I get the best of both worlds:
                fast as chrome, privacy friendly as firefox.
                
                EDIT: Looks like popularity is on the rise [1]. Hopefully it
                will make it into the community repository.
                
   URI          [1]: https://pkgstats.archlinux.de/packages/ungoogled-chrom...
       
          fabianhjr wrote 3 days ago:
          > I really hope the privacy-conscious people downloading this aren't
          just downloading these binary blobs and instead compiling it from
          source.
          
          Those would be on a nix (linux/bsd/other) free source OS with distro
          specific binaries (or rolling their own and would be better off
          compiling it themselves anyways)
       
          FourthProtocol wrote 3 days ago:
          Well that's the thing - I'm not willing to build them. I wouldn't
          know where to start, even. And no ambition to learn, whilst Firefox
          and uBlock keep going. Seriously why should I? Maybe someone more
          able than I can share their knowledge with a pointer to a guide that
          says why this is better than what I have, and how to get it running
          on my Windows box.
          
          My current position is to step wide and rather carefully around
          anything by/from Google.
       
            ThatFave wrote 2 days ago:
            I like LibreFox.
       
              skrowl wrote 2 days ago:
               [1] and [2] are also nice, depending on which OS you're on
              
   URI        [1]: https://www.basilisk-browser.org/
   URI        [2]: https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/
       
              kreeben wrote 2 days ago:
              I'm a waterfoxer, myself. Unmozillad Firefox. I'm going to
              unwaterfox the shit out of that browser if they start acting up.
       
            cyanydeez wrote 2 days ago:
            someone should setup some bare shell sandbox called "build your own
            chromium"
            
            /nerdsnipe
       
              makeitdouble wrote 2 days ago:
              Could that be straight running the CI build image on your machine
              ?
       
                brian_herman wrote 2 days ago:
                yes
       
            path411 wrote 3 days ago:
            Just use brave. I don't get why people are still trying to split
            off a new no-Google pro privacy chromium when there is a Very good
            option already. If people pushed to help brave even better we would
            be in a very good world
       
              MisterSandman wrote 1 day ago:
              Brave is done a lot of sleazy shit in the past, I clouding
              redirecting all Amazon links to their own Amazon referrals etc.
              They're hardly the knight in shining armour HN makes them out to
              be.
       
              Yizahi wrote 2 days ago:
              The problem is that Brave, Edge, Chromium, Vivaldi and everything
              else are not "split from Chrome". They are in sync in Chrome and
              just add their gimmics to every new Chrome change. There is zero
              point in using any of them if the target is to dethrone Google
              from their monopoly.
              The real "split from Chrome" browser is for example Safari -
              Safari and Chrome go back to the same Webkit but went different
              ways, with different decisions and different codebase. Brave is
              just a clone of Chrome with bells and whistles. Not very brave,
              just saying :)
       
                freedomben wrote 2 days ago:
                You think Ungoogled Chromium is more split than Brave is?  Or
                are you not replying to what the parent said?
       
              IncRnd wrote 2 days ago:
              Well, if I took all the brave features out of brave, it might
              then be reasonable to use.
       
              Eelongate wrote 2 days ago:
              Brave shills cryptoshit at me, and Mozilla shills VPNs at me.  
              Chrome is from an ad company.    All three set off my sleaze
              alarm.    What a sad state of affairs.
       
                jug wrote 2 days ago:
                Vivaldi?
       
                  NylaTheWolf wrote 2 days ago:
                  I've started using Vivaldi to break away from Chrome because
                  the features just drew me in. It has a its quirks and flaws,
                  but I really like it!
       
                DeathArrow wrote 2 days ago:
                I use Edge. It works on Windows, Linux and Android.
       
                  soundnote wrote 11 hours 42 min ago:
                  Edge is a quality product, but sadly a privacy disaster.
                  Their new tab page is chatty as hell, they do run their own
                  sync backend, but that backend is not fully end to end
                  encrypted, only some data types are. Their session IDs are
                  hardware-based, while many other browsers' are more transient
                  (some don't persist across browser restarts, some do).
       
                  moonchrome wrote 2 days ago:
                  This is the worst option, Microsoft has consistently show
                  they have the lowest ethical standards when it comes to
                  products like Edge. They packed in a 3rd party payment tool
                  in the browser ! It's like browser with crapware built in.
                  
                  The only reason they aren't worse than Google is that they've
                  been so shit at capturing the market share they don't get to
                  make the same kind of moves, but Bing/Edge are not good
                  alternatives for Google/Chrome.
                  
                  I'm not one of those people that screams "M$ evil boooo", I
                  actually use .NET day-to-day on a current project. But they
                  have a really shit track record on Edge, it's the first
                  browser I would avoid.
       
                    skrowl wrote 2 days ago:
                    Your M$ evil boooo mentality is somewhat out of date.
                    
                    Microsoft is making great strides in open source and Linux.
                     A decade ago, you wouldn't have believed MS would publish
                    SQL Server for Linux, release something as great as VS
                    Code, create Windows Subsystem for Linux (and Android
                    soon), acquire npm and github and make them better rather
                    than destroying them, etc.
       
                      heavyset_go wrote 2 days ago:
                      Your "Microsoft <3's open source" mentality is also out
                      of date[1][2][3]. [1] [2]
                      
   URI                [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28975856
   URI                [2]: https://keivan.io/the-day-appget-died/
   URI                [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28794352
       
                    DeathArrow wrote 2 days ago:
                    What 3rd party payment? I enjoy Edge because it blocks ads
                    on Android, supports Chrome extensions and it is not
                    controlled by Google.
       
                      moonchrome wrote 2 days ago:
                      There was a post here recently about it [1]. After
                      shipping this with browser I would have 0 trust in this
                      product.
                      
                      I gave up on Edge because it didn't support uBlock origin
                      on Android, I view bundled add blockers as just another
                      way for the browser to block competition while still
                      serving you their own "respectful" ads.
                      
   URI                [1]: https://www.xda-developers.com/microsoft-edge-bu...
       
                path411 wrote 2 days ago:
                Brave even in the discussion is atleast a big improvement in
                affairs. I couldn't name a single chromium privacy fork from 5
                years ago or whenever they started.
                
                It's also like a few clicks to turn off brave settings. It's
                less setup for brave than I go through on any new video game
                settings lol
       
                Certhas wrote 2 days ago:
                If Brave and Firefox are in the same league as Chrome for you
                your sleaze alarm is a very very bad guide to the modern world
                and seriously needs upgrading.
       
                  Eelongate wrote 2 days ago:
                  There are different levels of sleaze; I use firefox not
                  chrome so don't try to put words into my mouth.  While
                  firefox may be a better choice than the other two, that's not
                  saying much and Mozilla is very sleazy.  If you don't see
                  that, maybe you're acclimatized to it.
       
                    KronisLV wrote 2 days ago:
                    > While firefox may be a better choice than the other two,
                    that's not saying much and Mozilla is very sleazy.
                    
                    Rather than take such statements at face value, here's an
                    example of one such instance that probably hurts its
                    credibility: [1] Also, they're not exactly a world apart
                    from Google in some respects either, for example: [2] vs
                    [3] (though i guess the amount of projects also illustrates
                    the difference in their sizes)
                    
                    However, that's not to say that we even have many viable
                    alternatives to Firefox either: [4] Personally, i think
                    that we're past the peak of Firefox and are currently in
                    the midst of it fading away, which i expect will come to
                    its conclusion in the following decade. Apart from that, we
                    basically have just a bunch of browsers that are all
                    similar to Chromium.
                    
                    Essentially, Chrome will have probably lived long enough to
                    kill IE by becoming the next IE.
                    
                    Who knows where the web standards will go when there will
                    only be Google backed browsers:
                    
   URI              [1]: https://calpaterson.com/mozilla.html
   URI              [2]: https://killedbymozilla.com/
   URI              [3]: https://killedbygoogle.com/
   URI              [4]: https://batsov.com/articles/2021/11/28/firefox-is-...
   URI              [5]: https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/
       
                    blindmute wrote 2 days ago:
                    How do you recommend Mozilla generates the millions in
                    revenue necessary to develop a browser?
       
                ButtSpark69 wrote 2 days ago:
                In Brave you can just turn the adds off. They're optional for
                if you want to earn their token.
       
                  vadfa wrote 2 days ago:
                  You can do that but they will eventually add a new ad.
                  
                  One day they added a small widget to buy crypto in the new
                  tab page. That was the breaking point for me. Like it
                  happened with Firefox ads, I started to understand that Brave
                  was working against me too.
       
                  onion2k wrote 2 days ago:
                  You're still supporting the cryptocurrency ecosystem by using
                  it though. It's not completely unreasonable to want to avoid
                  doing that if you're opposed to cryptocurrencies in a wider
                  context.
       
                wutbrodo wrote 2 days ago:
                Yes, high-quality free products tend to try to find ways to
                fund themselves that involve appeals to their users. It's
                beyond ludicrous to find this a "sad state of affairs".
       
                  IntelMiner wrote 2 days ago:
                  If only there was some sort of "free high quality product"
                  operating system that existed and proved this asinine defense
                  of capitalism wrong
       
                    wutbrodo wrote 1 day ago:
                    Another free product is the online dictionary! You may want
                    to look up the word "tend", and the lack of universality it
                    implies.
       
                    moonchrome wrote 2 days ago:
                    >If only there was some sort of "free high quality product"
                    operating system that existed and proved this asinine
                    defense of capitalism wrong
                    
                    The only reason Linux is popular on servers is because it
                    has huge corporate sponsorship. Big players figured it it's
                    more beneficial for their bottom line to commoditize the
                    backend infrastructure and invest in OSS. Same is happening
                    with developer tools.
                    
                    It's not happening with anything consumer facing because
                    everyone wants to take their angle at capitalising on the
                    market. I can't think of quality user facing OSS that isn't
                    aimed at developers or isn't trying to capitalise on the
                    users somehow. Scratch that - blender is the only one I can
                    think of - these guys are an amazing exception.
       
                      hattar wrote 2 days ago:
                      Keepass, Calibre, and 7-zip come to mind.
       
                        moonchrome wrote 2 days ago:
                        I won't argue these projects aren't quality because
                        they certainly do the job, but they obviously lack
                        polish of  commercial software. Eg. despite looking
                        into kepass I still chose to pay for 1password, just
                        for the convenience.
       
                        SalamiMoon wrote 2 days ago:
                        VLC and OBS as well.
       
                          moonchrome wrote 2 days ago:
                          VLC is a good point I forgot about it. AFAIK OBS is
                          sponsored by streaming platforms - I think it's
                          another case of comoditizing the infrastructure.
       
                    p410n3 wrote 2 days ago:
                    That'd be nice.
                    
                    But all we got is Linux on the desktop...
       
                      LordAtlas wrote 2 days ago:
                      Comedy is truth and pain.
       
              yosito wrote 2 days ago:
              I'm curious why Brave crashes on CalyxOS (degoogled Android) any
              time I try to view my wallet balance.
       
                bsclifton wrote 2 days ago:
                Likely due to SafetyNet API not being supported on that
                platform. I think this is captured with
                
   URI          [1]: https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/15344
       
                  yosito wrote 2 days ago:
                  Thanks for the info! Very disappointing that Brave markets
                  themselves as a degoogled browser, but depends on Google Play
                  Services.
       
                  franga2000 wrote 2 days ago:
                  Why the hell does a web browser implement SafetyNet?!? The
                  one and only justifiable use for SafetyNet that I've seen is
                  Snapchat - everything else has been a net negative...
       
                    heavyset_go wrote 2 days ago:
                    It's DRM that ensures only Google-approved platforms can
                    run Android apps.
       
                    bsclifton wrote 2 days ago:
                    If a user has Brave Rewards and ads enabled and gets an ad
                    grant at the end of the month, SafetyNet is one measure
                    used to help filter out fraudsters. The absence of it
                    shouldn't cause a crash though
       
              howdydoo wrote 2 days ago:
              Ungoogled Chromium isn't new. It predates Brave by years. And
              Brave is funded by advertising, just like Google. (In theory, at
              least, if the company becomes self-sustaining.) I'm not sure why
              we needed to add cryptocurrency to that formula.
       
                stjohnswarts wrote 2 days ago:
                I don't have a problem with ads, I have a problem with tracking
                and profile building.
       
                blacksmith_tb wrote 2 days ago:
                I only use Brave for Google properties like gMaps and Google
                Translate (which never work quite right in FF for me), but you
                don't have to turn on any of the crypto stuff if you don't want
                to, I keep it all disabled.
       
              redkoala wrote 3 days ago:
              Brave is also based on the Chromium engine, and using any
              Chromium based browser would work against open web standards.
       
            henvic wrote 3 days ago:
            So you say your current position is to be rather carefully around
            anything by/from Google, but you trust Internet randos to build the
            binary of the browser you use?
            
            Okay.
       
              adar wrote 2 days ago:
              > So you say your current position is to be rather carefully
              around anything by/from Google, but you trust Internet randos to
              build the binary of the browser you use?
              
              How did you come to this conclusion when they stated that they'd
              rather use Firefox? Or are you saying Mozilla are the internet
              randos?
       
              glitchc wrote 2 days ago:
              Why not? I trust internet randos to build the binaries of (linux)
              OSes I use. It’s not like I know the folks who compiled the
              Ubuntu or Manjaro LiveCD from Adam.
       
              ineedasername wrote 2 days ago:
              No, unless I misunderstand them, they're saying they make do with
              Firefox and uBlock. They're not saying they will download the
              rando binary.
       
              ipaddr wrote 2 days ago:
              Wouldn't you trust randos with nothing in common but trying to
              build an open browser vs a corporation who mission is to gather
              information from you via your browser?
              
              Sounds a little crazy not to trust them.
       
                ineedasername wrote 2 days ago:
                I trust that Google will abuse my personal information for
                monetary gain via advertising. I also trust that their compiled
                versions of Chrome will not be a ticking time bomb of
                ransomware.
                
                On the other hand, I simply don't trust internet randos, much
                less to install their binaries.
                
                And it seems like a third option of Firefox w/ uBlock is less
                bad than either of the above.
       
                minhazm wrote 2 days ago:
                The trust is in different areas. The risk that Google would
                ship something that steals your passwords, addresses, or credit
                card information and does anything harmful with it besides ad
                targeting is basically zero. You know what you're getting with
                Google for the most part. The risk in the case of downloading
                random binaries is they may actually steal your information and
                cause real harm beyond ad targeting.
                
                If you want chromium without Google there are several options
                such as Edge, Opera, Brave and probably a dozen more I've never
                heard of.
       
              wongarsu wrote 2 days ago:
              Firefox is a well-known project that I've followed for one and a
              half decade, with roots much older than that and an established
              an well-known governance structure. I'd certainly trust them as
              much if not more than Google.
              
              Unlike this project, which is very much from "internet randos"
       
                dkdk8283 wrote 2 days ago:
                Mozilla has tested our patience with Pocket, a horrible service
                that’s more or less abused by Moz.
       
                  lopis wrote 2 days ago:
                  Is a pre-installed clipboard addon somehow as bag as
                  siphoning all your private data and browsing habits? I don't
                  think we're comparing equivalent evils here. It's also easy
                  to not use Pocket.
       
                  wongarsu wrote 2 days ago:
                  Yes, there's a lot to be desired with Mozilla, and I don't
                  think they do a particularly good job. With "I trust them as
                  much if not more than Google" I wasn't setting a particularly
                  high bar.
       
                ekianjo wrote 2 days ago:
                >  with roots much older than that and an established an
                well-known governance structure
                
                such a well-known governance that keeps putting back telemetry
                and ads when users dont want them.
       
                  ciphol wrote 2 days ago:
                  So they will do stuff like show you ads. They won't do stuff
                  like steal your credit card details, passwords, or identity
                  which an internet rando might do.
       
                  franga2000 wrote 2 days ago:
                  The term "telemetry" can mean anything from automatic crash
                  reports to click tracking to transmitting your browsing
                  history along with your social security number. Google is far
                  closer to the end of that spectrum, Mozilla is somewhere in
                  the lower first half.
                  
                  As for ads - where? I haven't seen any and I've been using
                  Firefox on multiple platforms for many years.
       
                    krageon wrote 2 days ago:
                    Both ends of the telemetry spectrum are evil, explicitly
                    because the term means nothing except "data about you".
       
                      franga2000 wrote 2 days ago:
                      That's...not what telemetry means...
                      
                      Even if it did, we're again back at the point of "X is a
                      spectrum". "evil" is a spectrum which, according to you,
                      includes anonymous crash reports and then goes on to
                      include serial killers and war criminals. Even then,
                      anonymised usage data used to guide development is far
                      less evil than collecting highly personal and identifying
                      data and using it for targeted psychological manipulation
                      to get you to buy things.
                      
                      I get it, Mozilla isn't the poster child FLOSS org that
                      we'd like it to be, but it's still orders of magnitude
                      better than the competition.
       
                      mkl wrote 2 days ago:
                      > the term means nothing except "data about you".
                      
                      No, crash reports are primarily data about the program,
                      with very little if anything about you.
       
                        krageon wrote 1 day ago:
                        Very few applications take pains to make sure no
                        personal information is submitted in crash dumps.
                        Generally it is just a bald memory dump that you're
                        supposed to ship out - definitely not a good idea if
                        you care about your privacy.
       
              bryceacc wrote 2 days ago:
              i read that as "why bother with a hacked up chromium when i can
              just use firefox"
       
                smitty1e wrote 2 days ago:
                Point being that you're always trusting somebody.
                
                "Reflections on Trusting Trust": [1] And even if you go Full
                OpenBSD, you're still relying on some chip microcode and BIOS
                that you bought sight-unseen.
                
                So, unless the Free Software Foundation staffs its own fab
                staffed by angels, the best we can do is minimize risk.
                
   URI          [1]: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_19...
       
              tshaddox wrote 2 days ago:
              Do you trust Internet randos to build the binaries of the
              compilers you use to compile the Chromium source code? How deep
              do we need to go?
       
                spudlyo wrote 2 days ago:
                If you really want to blow your mind you can go all the way
                back to stage0[0].
                
                A more practical depth would be to bootstrap with GNU Mes,
                which is a source based bootstrapping path, that begins with a
                tiny scheme interpreter (~5000 LOC of simple C) and a C
                compiler written in scheme that are mutually self-hosting.
                
                These tools can compile a slightly patched version of TinyCC
                that is self-hosting. Using this C compiler you can bootstrap a
                bunch of gnutools (glibc, binutils, gcc) and using these tools
                you can bootstrap a full Guix Linux distro.
                
                [0]:
                
   URI          [1]: https://github.com/oriansj/stage0
       
                  not2b wrote 2 days ago:
                  The bootstrapping process that GCC uses is as follows:
                  
                  stage 1: build from source using your existing compiler
                  
                  stage 2: build again from source using the compiler you just
                  built
                  
                  stage 3: (just for checking): build a stage 3 compiler from
                  the stage 2 compiler. Verify that it is byte-for-byte
                  identical.
                  
                  extra stages for the paranoid: repeat the process with a
                  different starting compiler, as unrelated as possible. Again,
                  verify that the output is bit-for-bit identical.  You then
                  know either that you're good, that the compiler reflects the
                  source, or both starting compilers have the same devious
                  hidden hack, perhaps courtesy of Ken Thompson himself.
                  
                  GNU Mes achieves that paranoid step: once you verify with GNU
                  Mes that you get the same bits, you don't really have to do
                  this ever again, because you can certify that the compiler
                  you get is reproducible from source and has no tricks.
       
              another-dave wrote 3 days ago:
              Wisdom of crowds though — there's enough eyes on the stuff
              built by "internet randos" over at Mozilla to have a larger level
              of trust in it Vs an unknown fork of Chromium
       
            minitech wrote 3 days ago:
            If you don’t use ungoogled-chromium, you’re presumably not
            downloading and running community-provided non-reproducible binary
            blobs of ungoogled-chromium, so you don’t need to learn to
            compile them from source instead. That’s what the comment was
            about.
       
            deusum wrote 3 days ago:
            Have some fun, make your own delta script. Download only what you
            need,  recompile!
       
          ronnier wrote 3 days ago:
          I just use Brave browser now. It's very good. I can use chrome
          extensions.
       
            dartharva wrote 2 days ago:
            I don't know, Brave has always broken more sites and failed to
            block more ads for me, than either Chromium or Firefox with uBlock
            Origin.
       
            keyle wrote 3 days ago:
            I've had a horrible experience on PC with early Brave. I'll never
            install that again. Just understand this, you don't trust Google,
            fine... Now do you trust some randos telling you you should trust
            them instead of Google...
       
              BrendanEich wrote 2 days ago:
              How early? Could be worth trying again.
       
              ldiracdelta wrote 3 days ago:
              I'm inclined to trust Brenden Eich over Google or random
              compiles.
       
              ronnier wrote 3 days ago:
              Yeah, because they don't control half of the internet.
       
            smoldesu wrote 3 days ago:
            I think I trust a random binary blob more than I do Brave's random
            binary blob, with all of it's crypto lug-alongs.
       
              ronnier wrote 3 days ago:
              The crypto stuff does weird me out. But I'd rather use it than a
              google product.
       
                path411 wrote 3 days ago:
                Pretty easy to turn off the crypto stuff
       
                  ronnier wrote 3 days ago:
                  Agreed. That's what I did.
       
                smoldesu wrote 3 days ago:
                I'd rather use a Google product than a Brendan Eich one.
       
                andrepd wrote 3 days ago:
                Well why choose? Just use neither.
       
                fsflover wrote 3 days ago:
                How about Firefox?
                
   URI          [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29378307
       
                  jptech wrote 2 days ago:
                  I use Firefox as my main browser, Brave as backup foot sites
                  that don't work well with FF.  
                  Brave does a good job with randomizing fingerprints.
       
            webmobdev wrote 3 days ago:
            Vivaldi Browser is a better Chrome clone than Brave.
       
              1_player wrote 3 days ago:
              Vivaldi is the definition of bloat. What was that saying, that
              all software grows until it bundles an entire mail client? Yeah,
              that's Vivaldi.
       
                NylaTheWolf wrote 2 days ago:
                I mean, there are different setups of Vivaldi you can choose
                when you first open the browser: [1] Essentials gives you the
                very basic stuff, classic gives you some extra features, and
                fully loaded gives you the built in mail client and all that
                other stuff.
                
   URI          [1]: https://vivaldi.com/features/#essentials
       
                yborg wrote 2 days ago:
                Zawinski's Law of Software Envelopment : “Every program
                attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which
                cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can.”
       
                  1_player wrote 2 days ago:
                  Google/Chrome has gmail. Vivaldi has a mail client. That's
                  why Firefox is dying!
       
                Bayart wrote 3 days ago:
                It's just doing the same stuff Opera did (with a much less
                pleasing engine).
                
                I've used Vivaldi for years but now I'm getting split on it.
                I've got regressions that are just unacceptable (especially
                when it comes to video playback), but at the same time it comes
                with features I can't live without.
       
              keyle wrote 3 days ago:
              Interesting, that source code is growing FAST though, I wonder
              why that is... [1] edit: "integrated email client" Ok now I see
              why ;)
              
   URI        [1]: https://vivaldi.com/source/
       
                konart wrote 2 days ago:
                Vivaldi, just like Opera back in a day has things integrated,
                yeah... They even have Philips Hue controls
                
   URI          [1]: https://help.vivaldi.com/desktop/miscellaneous/philips...
       
                MrWiffles wrote 3 days ago:
                I thought Vivaldi was closed source for some reason, so thank
                you for this! I may be using that more often now!
       
                  pseudalopex wrote 3 days ago:
                  The UI is closed source.
       
                    keyle wrote 2 days ago:
                    Right, I didn't know that
                    
                    > Note that, of the three layers above, only the UI layer
                    is closed-source. Roughly 92% of the browser’s code is
                    open source coming from Chromium, 3% is open source coming
                    from us, which leaves only 5% for our UI closed-source code
                    
                    That changes the equation quite a bit.
       
                    Bayart wrote 3 days ago:
                    It's still readable and editable, AFAIK. At least the CSS
                    files.
       
                      pseudalopex wrote 3 days ago:
                      It's obfuscated.[1]
                      
   URI                [1]: https://vivaldi.com/blog/technology/why-isnt-viv...
       
              theduder99 wrote 3 days ago:
              because reasons?
       
          heavyset_go wrote 3 days ago:
          Anyone know how the Flatpak builds of this project[1] are built? Does
          FlatHub have a CI pipeline that builds Ungoogled Chromium binaries?
          
   URI    [1]: https://flathub.org/apps/details/com.github.Eloston.Ungoogle...
       
            wjt wrote 3 days ago:
            They are built by Flathub, just like the vanilla Chromium build on
            Flathub.
            
            Here is the most recent build logs for x86_64 [1] which I found
            from the GitHub green-tick status icon on the latest commit on [2]
            .
            
   URI      [1]: https://flathub.org/builds/#/builders/12/builds/8123
   URI      [2]: https://github.com/flathub/com.github.Eloston.UngoogledChr...
       
              heavyset_go wrote 3 days ago:
              Thanks
       
          KennyBlanken wrote 3 days ago:
          I am baffled that they would accept binaries, instead of, oh, say,
          pull requests helping set up builds.
       
            onion2k wrote 3 days ago:
            There is exactly such a PR - [1] - as you might imagine building a
            complex binary for many target OSs and flavors within OSs, it's a
            little complicated and requires some discussion about the right
            approach. In the mean time, binaries are available.
            
   URI      [1]: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/pull/1693
       
        evv wrote 3 days ago:
        See also: VSCodium if you like VSCode but don't like sending sensitive
        telemetry info to Microsoft.
        
        It is ironically hosted for free on Microsoft's popular git hosting
        website.
       
          est wrote 2 days ago:
          VSCodium doesn't work well with Github Copilot (from my limited
          testing)
       
          ayushnix wrote 2 days ago:
          Gave up on it after it stopped downloading extensions from both the
          official Microsoft store and the OpenVSX store due to the CORS issue.
          The fragility of the OpenVSX store was in highlight when their
          maintainers couldn't make it compatible with the CORS requirement of
          VSCode for several months. I'm not sure if it's fixed now or if
          they're still using a workaround.
       
          asddubs wrote 3 days ago:
          does vscodium have a way to only display FOSS extensions? I've
          considered giving it a whirl but I don't really like the idea of it
          if it ends up just being a trojan horse for closed source extensions
       
            m4lvin wrote 2 days ago:
            vscodium by default only offers extensions from [1] But I am not
            sure whether that repo accepts non-free software.
            
   URI      [1]: https://open-vsx.org/
       
          pvinis wrote 3 days ago:
          what do you consider "sensitive telemetry"?
       
          fartcannon wrote 3 days ago:
          Or perhaps we could all stop using software written by people with
          the express intent of reducing our overall freedom?
          
          It's easy, just don't use Google, Microsoft and Apple stuff.
       
            xeromal wrote 2 days ago:
            It's easy as avoiding drinking water. lol
       
            colordrops wrote 2 days ago:
            What phone OS do you use?
       
              fartcannon wrote 2 days ago:
              Mobian at home, and Lineage without GAPPs at work.
       
              fsflover wrote 2 days ago:
              Mobian.
       
                colordrops wrote 2 days ago:
                You're not OP!
       
                  fsflover wrote 2 days ago:
                  Indeed, but I fully agree with the OP and do what they
                  suggested.
       
            LeoPanthera wrote 3 days ago:
            One of these things is not like the others. I really wouldn't put
            Apple in that group.
            
            The only reason I can think of even putting them in a nearby group
            is because of App Store restrictions, but you can still sideload
            your own code, and it doesn't apply to Macs at all.
       
              fartcannon wrote 2 days ago:
              Apples closed and heavily taxed ecosystem is the worst of the
              three.
       
              tick_tock_tick wrote 3 days ago:
              > One of these things is not like the others. I really wouldn't
              put Apple in that group.
              
              Apple is an order of magnitude worse at "with the express intent
              of reducing our overall freedom".
       
              lordofgibbons wrote 3 days ago:
              >but you can still sideload your own code
              
              Unless something has changed very recently, you can't sideload
              apps to your iOS device without getting a developer account from
              Apple and owning another apple OSX product from which to do the
              installation.
              
              Not to mention being unable to use non-safari browsers on iOS and
              the scanning your images for illegal stuff they're planning on
              rolling out, and the extremely egregious anti right-to-repair
              lobbying they're doing.
              
              Apple is not your friend. The less control we have over their
              device, the more money they can make from us.
       
                deepdmistry wrote 2 days ago:
                Unless i am mistaken, You can use non safari browsers on iOS. I
                use Firefox.
       
                  fsflover wrote 2 days ago:
                  No, the engine is still Safari. See also: [1] .
                  
   URI            [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21587606
       
                prophesi wrote 3 days ago:
                > and the extremely egregious anti right-to-repair lobbying
                they're doing.
                
                They're rolling out a self-repair program soon, though this is
                certainly due to pressure from shareholders and the like.
                
                The other points are completely valid but their sins pale in
                comparison to Google and Microsoft's.
       
                  fsflover wrote 2 days ago:
                  > but their sins pale in comparison to Google and Microsoft's
                  
                  I invite you to have a look at my favorite HN submissions
                  about Apple: [1] .
                  
   URI            [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/favorites?id=fsflover
       
              fsflover wrote 3 days ago:
               [1]
              
   URI        [1]: https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.en.html
   URI        [2]: https://stallman.org/apple.html
       
                LeoPanthera wrote 2 days ago:
                No offense, but Stallman has a very black and white view of the
                world.
                
                I saw him give a talk once, and it was peppered with childish
                insults and calling companies and products he didn't like by
                "funny" alternative names.
                
                It was impossible to take him seriously.
       
                  mrpopo wrote 2 days ago:
                  Shooting the messenger. The linked page is not up to
                  encyclopedic standards of neutrality, but there are bits
                  worth discussing.
       
                    blitzar wrote 2 days ago:
                    > Apple devices lock users in solely to Apple services by
                    being designed to be incompatible with all other options,
                    ethical or unethical.
                    
                    Is this litterally the best facts that gnu.org could come
                    up with? Who put together this crap; a 12 year old or a guy
                    who sells mattresses and is gonna launch his big lawsuit
                    any day now.
       
                      fsflover wrote 2 days ago:
                      But it’s true. Can you use Apple Watch with Android?
                      No. You even cannot use it with an iPad!
       
                        blitzar wrote 2 days ago:
                        > But it’s true
                        
                        > Apple devices lock users in solely to Apple services
                        by being designed to be incompatible with all other
                        options
                        
                        incompatible with ALL other options
                        
                        Can you use an iPad with Gmail? Yes. Can you use google
                        maps? Yes. Can you use the non apple internet? Yes. Can
                        use non apple services on an OSX? Yes. Can you use
                        dropbox? Yes.
                        
                        I wont keep going as the list of non apple services you
                        can use with an apple device is bascially infinite. In
                        the time it would take to write them all down many more
                        would have come into existence.
                        
                        So it is demonstrably false, not even remotely close to
                        being true.
                        
                        There are legitimate issues, you dont need to
                        litterally make up shit to make the case. It is either
                        lazy, or just shows that the people making the case are
                        too retarded for the nuance needed to actually
                        highlight the real problems that exist.
       
                        LeoPanthera wrote 2 days ago:
                        This is a bit like complaining that you can't use an
                        Xbox controller with a Playstation.
       
                          fsflover wrote 2 days ago:
                          There is no technical reason why Apple Watch can't
                          work with other devices, except intentional Apple
                          lockdown forcing users to buy iPhones. I see nothing
                          similar with the gaming platforms.
                          
                          Apple Watch can't even be turned on without an
                          iPhone. Have a look at PineTime - an open-source
                          watch that can work with anything you want, or by
                          itself.
       
                            agentdax5 wrote 2 days ago:
                            >  I see nothing similar with the gaming platforms.
                            
                            How can you say that? I can’t run home brew games
                            on an Xbox due to intentional locking down of the
                            device by Microsoft forcing me to buy games they
                            bless to be on their platform.
                            
                            But some how these companies get a pass but Apple
                            gets constantly blasted for this practice?
                            
                            For the record, you should be able to do these
                            things. But that is somewhat of a naive view of the
                            world.
       
            kmeisthax wrote 3 days ago:
            It's easy, just don't use a computer.
       
            kube-system wrote 3 days ago:
            It's not that easy.  Computing is a collaborative effort for many;
            these decisions are not made at the margin and in isolation.
       
        throwawaysea wrote 3 days ago:
        Related: what options are there to avoid a dependency on either Google
        or Microsoft when it comes to productivity apps? I feel like the only
        two "real" options are G Suite (or whatever it is called now) and
        Office. Are there others that are compatible-enough that they are
        realistic options, particularly with online (in browser) experiences?
       
          dartharva wrote 2 days ago:
          Cryptpad ( [1] ) is what's recommended on PrivacyGuides, though it
          looks like it's only using OnlyOffice under the hood, at least for
          its spreadsheet.
          
   URI    [1]: https://cryptpad.fr/
       
          vindarel wrote 2 days ago:
          Only Office: [1] compatible Office, connects to NextCloud, Android
          and iOs, open source… (didn't try but I see organizations using it)
          
   URI    [1]: https://www.onlyoffice.com/
       
          fsflover wrote 3 days ago:
          
          
   URI    [1]: https://prism-break.org
       
          heavyset_go wrote 3 days ago:
          Check out FreeOffice[1]. It's closed-source but zero cost.
          
   URI    [1]: https://www.freeoffice.com/en/
       
          chongli wrote 3 days ago:
          I use Apple’s iWork suite (mainly Pages and Numbers). It’s closed
          source, obviously, but very usable for my needs. It also has
          collaborative editing built in without involving the browser. I’m
          pretty generally anti-browser as a person though. If there’s a
          desktop application I can use instead of the browser, I’ll use it.
       
          jbj wrote 3 days ago:
          There is Onlyoffice for nextcloud, but it was a bit laggy when I
          tried it myself
       
          webmobdev wrote 3 days ago:
          I've been impressed with the recent versions of LibreOffice. If you
          don't need collaboration, it's quite good.
       
          clircle wrote 3 days ago:
          Without defining what "real" means, I think you've answered the
          question for yourself.
       
          netizen-936824 wrote 3 days ago:
          Next cloud has integration with collabora
          
   URI    [1]: https://nextcloud.com/collaboraonline/
       
          narrator wrote 3 days ago:
          There's [1] .  It's not a web collaboration suite though.
          
   URI    [1]: http://libreoffice.org
       
            heavyset_go wrote 3 days ago:
            FreeOffice is closed-source, but free, and available on Linux,
            macOS and Windows. It works pretty well and I think it's better
            than what LibreOffice currently offers.
            
   URI      [1]: https://www.freeoffice.com/en/
       
              indymike wrote 2 days ago:
              There is also WPS Office. [1] . It's actually very well done, and
              seems to be pretty compatible. It also runs on everything.
              
   URI        [1]: https://www.wps.com/en-US/
       
              kube-system wrote 3 days ago:
              > closed-source, but free,
              
              That's the scariest combination possible IMO.  Regardless of the
              trustworthiness of the developer, it stacks incentives in a bad
              way.  Even if LibreOffice is worse, at least it'll be around
              longer than one single developer.
       
                heavyset_go wrote 3 days ago:
                I agree completely, but it might suit the use case of someone
                trying to get some work done.
       
            PeterisP wrote 3 days ago:
            It's usable in isolation, but at least the last time I used it, it
            did not fit the parent post's criteria for "compatible-enough that
            they are realistic options"; it did break document layouts when
            exchanging work to/from people using MS Office.
       
        webmobdev wrote 3 days ago:
        The technical stuff - [1] (I wish someone would do this with Firefox
        too. I am tired of all the useless or meaningless services being added
        to Firefox - from pocket to monitor to even ads now.)
        
   URI  [1]: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/blob/master/docs...
       
          gundamdoubleO wrote 3 days ago:
          Librewolf might be in a similar vein to what you're looking for? [1]
          Been using it on my work machine for a few months and I'm quite happy
          with it
          
   URI    [1]: https://librewolf-community.gitlab.io/
       
          mbakke wrote 3 days ago:
          GNU IceCat is a "de-mozillaed"[^] Firefox LTS: [1] It seems it is
          mostly maintained within GNU Guix now (which has 91.3.0).
          
          [^]: It comes with its own set of opinionated (but privacy-friendly)
          add-ons.
          
   URI    [1]: https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/
       
            coffeecat wrote 2 days ago:
            Unfortunately, upstream IceCat appears to use the FireFox 60.x ESR
            branch, which is three branches behind the current ESR and is past
            its end-of-life date. It's also a few security updates behind the
            60.x ESR branch's last release.
            
            The GUIX package is more recent, but its description states:
            
            > WARNING: IceCat 91 has not yet been released by the upstream
            IceCat project. This is a preview release, and does not currently
            meet the privacy-respecting standards of the IceCat project.
       
            garaetjjte wrote 3 days ago:
            It reminds me when Debian shipped with "Iceweasel" instead of
            Firefox because of some licensing nonsense.
       
          bashonly wrote 3 days ago:
           [1] plus
          
              rm /usr/lib/firefox/browser/features/*.xpi
          
          takes care of pretty much all of the firefox bloat for me
          
   URI    [1]: https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js
       
          gruez wrote 3 days ago:
          >(I wish someone would do this with Firefox too. I am tired of all
          the useless or meaningless services being added to Firefox - from
          pocket to monitor to even ads now.)
          
          Is that really needed considering that about:config flags fixes
          all/most of the issues?
       
            Teever wrote 3 days ago:
            Mozilla can remotely kill extensions which means that privacy
            enabling features of firefox that are served as extensions like the
            containers feature can suddenly and without warning stop working.
            
            No amount of config flag fudging will fix that glaring design
            choice.
            
            And make no mistake, it's a choice, not an error.
       
              gruez wrote 2 days ago:
              >privacy enabling features of firefox that are served as
              extensions like the containers feature can suddenly and without
              warning stop working.
              
              containers is a core feature of the browser. The addon (Firefox
              Multi-Account Containers) only adds some niceties like an addon
              button to start containers, and auto-assigning sites to
              containers. Without the addon, you can still manage containers by
              going to about:preferences#containers and open a tab in a given
              container by long pressing the new tab button.
       
                Teever wrote 2 days ago:
                Any idea why Mozilla has chosen to implement it this way?
       
              notriddle wrote 3 days ago:
              Nobody thinks that Mozilla’s remote kill switch for extensions
              is an error. The reason I accept it is because I don’t want to
              be personally responsible for every extension I might install.
              Nobody has time for that. Let someone who does this stuff for a
              living take care of it.
       
                Teever wrote 2 days ago:
                I agree with that sentiment, It would just be nice to be able
                to turn of that kill switch, you know?
       
            webmobdev wrote 3 days ago:
            > about:config flags fixes all/most of the issues?
            
            How do I even keep track of all this? What if my personal data has
            been uploaded to some service that I am not even aware is running
            in the background.
            
            I'd like all that unnecessary code stripped from the browser. (It's
            like we are going backwards - we seem to have removed browser
            plugins in favour of bundling everything into a big bloat of a
            browser ... yeah, I know some of these are "special" firefox
            addons. The only thing that makes them "special" is that they are
            bundled into the browser by Mozilla, do not show up in the addons /
            extension page and cannot be removed like other user-installed
            addons.).
       
            yjftsjthsd-h wrote 3 days ago:
            Once upon a time, I used icecat, based on the conclusion that it
            was basically just firefox but with all the settings pre-set to
            what I would have had to manually set them to. A soft fork, or
            repackaging, of firefox that just tunes about:config values to
            somewhat more conservative presets would be lovely.
       
        notum wrote 3 days ago:
        Chromium is the opensource project Google based Chrome on, there should
        be no need to explicitly stress it's Google free, Chromium is vanilla
        until google's APIs are added in. I guess the name persists for
        additional clarity though.
        
        I personally use Henry's chrlauncher: [1] Some trust is needed but if
        given it automatically checks for builds on an automated build server
        and updates Chromium before launching it.
        
   URI  [1]: https://github.com/henrypp/chrlauncher
       
          funnyflamigo wrote 3 days ago:
          This is absolutely not the case.
          
          You can find some of the some of the patches here but there's more
          patches in the parent dir - [1] There's a lot of telemetry, and a few
          other services such as time checking.
          
          The features you're mentioning include the user syncing, translation,
          and DRM platforms (though you can add widevine to chromium, you cant
          add the others). Those are not the only things that call home  to
          google.
          
   URI    [1]: https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/tree/master/pa...
       
          anaisbetts wrote 3 days ago:
          This is Factually Inaccurate, there are many services in Chromium
          code that require Google services (and a special API key for them
          that is effectively impossible to use at scale)
       
          redmare80 wrote 3 days ago:
          Chromium contains google services, and significant google
          integration. It does not contain any of the closed source components,
          including some security components and DRM.
       
       
   DIR <- back to front page