Browser of the Year

teresaejunior · 01-09-2016, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ondoho

oh, not at all (*)! there you go:
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/inox/
and here are the patches themselves as a github repo:
https://github.com/gcarq/inox-patchset

(*) after compiling for many hours, i gave up on that and thought that even for newer hardware it must be a major strain, so i linked staright to the build.

I couldn't really find binaries in that page, actually! The tar.gz file in the "Download snapshot" link is just a very small package containing patches!

jamison20000e · 01-09-2016, 07:54 PM

Anyone notice how chrome's "History" menu tries to be intrusive like google and think it should know what I want? Never does, always have to open the full "History"!

teresaejunior · 01-10-2016, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamison20000e

Anyone notice how chrome's "History" menu tries to be intrusive like google and think it should know what I want? Never does, always have to open the full "History"!

For me it actually shows only recently closed tabs. I use this History Menu instead! You can use it to search for your whole history too.

teresaejunior · 01-11-2016, 06:15 AM

The Iridium developers have answered the following:

Quote:

iridiumbrowser.de is contacted for the Safe Browsing/Antiphishing/Bad Plugin lists, a feature which we have deemed important enough to keep enabled by default. You can turn that off in the Settings.

(...)

The hackernews thread is ancient by now. The debugging thing mentioned there has been replaced in iridium-43 with an improved solution that does not involve iridiumbrowser.de anymore.

I think it is a good solution from their part. As for me, I already use the Safe Browsing and Antiphishing lists from uBlock, so I have these options disabled.

cwizardone · 01-11-2016, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teresaejunior

The Iridium developers have answered the following:

I think it is a good solution from their part. As for me, I already use the Safe Browsing and Antiphishing lists from uBlock, so I have these options disabled.

Thanks for that. Next time I boot over to ms-windows I'll check it out.

ondoho · 01-12-2016, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teresaejunior

I couldn't really find binaries in that page, actually! The tar.gz file in the "Download snapshot" link is just a very small package containing patches!

i misunderstood your last post!
i thought you were complaining that there are only binaries, and no source to compile from.
fwiw, i have sometimes managed to compile things from source on a non-archlinux system, using an aur PKGBUILD as a blueprint.
that file contains all the info you need.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iridiumbrowser

The hackernews thread is ancient by now. The debugging thing mentioned there has been replaced in iridium-43 with an improved solution that does not involve iridiumbrowser.de anymore.

sorry, but i find that a little foggy. "improved solution" sounds like a sales pitch.
i asked them (in that issue) what it has been replaced with.

teresaejunior · 01-12-2016, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ondoho

i misunderstood your last post!
i thought you were complaining that there are only binaries, and no source to compile from.
fwiw, i have sometimes managed to compile things from source on a non-archlinux system, using an aur PKGBUILD as a blueprint.
that file contains all the info you need.

I tried compiling Chromium from Debian Unstable some months ago, and many many dependencies were missing. If I migrate away from Iridium, it will be probably in my next upgrade (but I hope it won't be needed).

Quote:

Originally Posted by ondoho

sorry, but i find that a little foggy. "improved solution" sounds like a sales pitch.
i asked them (in that issue) what it has been replaced with.

When I read this yesterday, I understood it didn't need to access external servers anymore, but reading it again, it is honestly a bit vague. I hope I was right, though!

ondoho · 01-14-2016, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teresaejunior

When I read this yesterday, I understood it didn't need to access external servers anymore, but reading it again, it is honestly a bit vague. I hope I was right, though!

thought about this a bit more; if malware protection is the only thing this is about, then it's something that firefox has, too. so ff, too, has a link to the google databases hardcoded. scary.
i really wonder what that "improved solution" is (still no answer on that github issue).

teresaejunior · 01-14-2016, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ondoho

thought about this a bit more; if malware protection is the only thing this is about, then it's something that firefox has, too. so ff, too, has a link to the google databases hardcoded. scary.
i really wonder what that "improved solution" is (still no answer on that github issue).

Yes, from my own research a few weeks ago, there are at least these types of connection that Firefox does to Google by default (with the options to disable them):

Code:

/* Download web forgeries blacklist from Google
 * https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-does-phishing-and-malware-protection-work
 */
user_pref("browser.safebrowsing.enabled", false);

/* Download malware blacklist from Google
 * http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.safebrowsing.malware.enabled
 */
user_pref("browser.safebrowsing.malware.enabled", false);

/* Exchange URL lookups for potentially unsafe downloads with Google
 * https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/39.0/releasenotes/
 */
user_pref("browser.safebrowsing.downloads.enabled", false);

/* If URL is invalid, display an error instead of querying Google
 * http://kb.mozillazine.org/Keyword.enabled#Caveats
 */
user_pref("keyword.enabled", false);

Rinndalir · 01-14-2016, 11:43 AM

Mine's not in there.

cpuobsessed · 01-15-2016, 09:39 AM

I have used Chrome since it was released by Google, but this past year it has become quite bloated and resource hungry.
I have switched back to Firefox

bobbib · 01-15-2016, 04:52 PM

I would prefer a single combined entry for Firefox & Iceweasel.

273 · 01-15-2016, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbib

I would prefer a single combined entry for Firefox & Iceweasel.

But which do you prefer?

Sorry, joking aside, why would you prefer that? Would you prefer to see Firefox win and fear it may not if Iceweasel is included? Do you think Iceweasel will get a small number of votes?

bobbib · 01-15-2016, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 273

But which do you prefer?

Sorry, joking aside, why would you prefer that? Would you prefer to see Firefox win and fear it may not if Iceweasel is included? Do you think Iceweasel will get a small number of votes?

I prefer the default one in a distribution, whether it's Iceweasel in Debian or Firefox in Ubuntu, and don't care for the logo

273 · 01-15-2016, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbib

I prefer the default one in a distribution, whether it's Iceweasel in Debian or Firefox in Ubuntu, and don't care for the logo

This isn't a vote for a logo, it's a vote for a browser...
There's a[an ready long, long..] argument about whether Firefox and Iceweasel are "the same thing" but since they've different names and some of us prefer one more than the other...
Sorry, I see previous posts suggesting that that they could be included together much as Nightly could, really, be a separate choice also but there needs to be a distinction and it is how it is.