HN Gopher Feed (2017-11-07) - page 1 of 10
WTF? Chromium (2016)
74 points by brudgershttp://raeknowler.com/wtf-chromium
millstone - 30 minutes ago
The love for Firefox seems misplaced, given that 1% of Firefox
downloaders get a version that sends what you type to a third party
(Cliqz).HN discussion was
edhelas - 59 minutes ago
I think that we are getting too dependent on this browser/engine
(Chrome/Chromium/Electron and the many others derivatives).This
will create serious issues in the future regarding how Google is
caring about respecting the market, the standards and their users
in general.Hopefully Mozilla has done a quite impressive work on
Firefox those past few months and I personally don't see any
advantages anymore for Chrome.
mcny - 50 minutes ago
> Hopefully Mozilla has done a quite impressive work on Firefox
those past few months and I personally don't see any advantages
anymore for Chrome.I use nightly and it is pretty good. Quite a
few things are broken in nightly in Android but I can use nightly
as my main browser (besides for hangouts which Google has yet to
implement). Edit, we have pocket on Firefox though so
deusum - 49 minutes ago
FF Quantum is quite nice, highly recommended.
fenwick67 - 41 minutes ago
It seems crazy to me how may projects depend on Chromium and V8
directly.Hopefully with Firefox's new improvements some of this
JustSomeNobody - 31 minutes ago
More to come with headless Chrome a thing.
oatmealsnap - 8 minutes ago
Headless Firefox is a thing, too.
oatmealsnap - 3 minutes ago
Aside from community support, what is preventing Firefox's JS
engine from being used to power a JS runtime?
porfirium - 59 minutes ago
The Iridium website and logo look so professional and "enterprisey"
that it looks like there's lots of money behind of it and they're
going to screw you. A barebones or even text-only website would do
them a favour.
hathawsh - 26 minutes ago
I don't think that's a fair assessment. The web site
(https://iridiumbrowser.de/) is nearly on par with the web sites
for other big open source projects like http://python.org or http
://ruby-lang.org .I think it just needs minor tweaks. I would
replace the marquee with static text and replace the section
title "Manifest" with something clearer like "Our Purpose" or
porfirium - 19 minutes ago
I clicked on the Iridium website and I only see one line of
text in uppercase. It has nothing to do with Python's or
Ruby's.The Iridium website gives me the impression I'm
downloading something akin to Comodo's browser.And it's
constructive criticism anyway.
oatmealsnap - 6 minutes ago
I don't get that sense at all. Looks like a generic "techy"
tardygrad - 56 minutes ago
Or just use Firefox, even if it is slightly slower than Chromium
it's at least a browser that works for you not one that treats you
as a pawn.A Chrome monoculture is harmful, even if Google has the
best intentions which I don't think they do - they definitely value
their profits over an open web.
DominoTree - 53 minutes ago
FWIW, at this point, the Firefox 57 betas are more responsive
than Chromium for me. Not planning on looking back any time
tazjin - 31 minutes ago
Same for me, I've also enabled all the experimental webrender
flags on both private and work machines and have had basically
no issues at all for the last weeks.It's actually almost
slightly uncanny how well it's working.
snowpanda - 19 minutes ago
>It's actually almost slightly uncanny how well it's
working.Indeed, I've caught myself thinking "it's not
supposed to render this fast" a few times myself. Really am
enjoying the nightlies.
kibwen - 10 minutes ago
This might be a placebo effect, because last I heard
enabling WebRender would leave the usual renderer enabled
as well in order to paper over yet-unimplemented features,
which should often result in double the work and, one would
assume, worse performance. But if it doesn't feel slower,
then, well, that might be some kind of triumph. :P
mariusmg - 53 minutes ago
>even if it is slightly slower than ChromiumFunny thing is
Firefox Quantum is both faster and eats less memory compared with
Chrome.>not one that treats you as a pawn.And sadly, Firefox is
the only browser that doesn't treat you like a pawn. For MS,
Google, Apple, that chinese company which owns Opera you are just
a pawn.(later edit : fixed the second remark).
akerro - 44 minutes ago
>And sadly, Firefox is the only browser that does this.Not any
more, I recently discovered that my firefox at work got
infected with Firefox Pioneer. I didn't install that, it just
appeared on list of my addons, no warning or anything. I heard
on Reddit about similar cases from a few months ago, people got
Safe Browsing installed without their knowledge. Both are
signed addons from
unethical_ban - 38 minutes ago
>at workIs youre IT group policy doing this?
noncoml - 43 minutes ago
>> not one that treats you as a pawn.> And sadly, Firefox is
the only browser that does this.Do you mean to say Firefox
treats you as a pawn? How so?(Genuinely interested)
dfee - 40 minutes ago
I read it as a typo, where the author intended to say:
FireFox is the only browser that does [not do] this.
nilved - 38 minutes ago
You have a very narrow definition of "browser." Try xombrero,
vimb, Luakit, uzbl or good old w3m.
MBCook - 36 minutes ago
Re: pawnWhat about Safari? (May not be an option based on OS
PeachPlum - 19 minutes ago
Brave browser - https://brave.com/Chrome without the tracking
usernam - 15 minutes ago
Firefox is not immune to this behavior. Please look up the
preference "experiments.enabled" before recommending blindly.In
fact, Firefox has increased in the amount of unwarranted
telemetry and "experiments" a lot in the last years, a direction
I'm really not happy with.The main difference is that Firefox
still gives you pretty liberal access to most internal settings,
while Chromium is abysmal, if not ridiculous.
laurent123456 - 37 minutes ago
Firefox is not slower, it's just that most websites are optimised
and tested only or mainly under Chrome.We are slowly getting back
to the way things were with IE, but I hope that Mozilla won't
give up and switch to blink or webkit like everybody else.
nicoburns - 23 minutes ago
That is definitely not true. Firefox 57 is about as fast as
chrome, and Firefox 59 may well overtake, but chrome has
genuinely been faster than Firefox for a long time.
GordonS - 21 minutes ago
I'm curious as to how you can optimise a site to be faster
specifically for Chrome?
O1111OOO - 14 minutes ago
> Firefox is not slower, it's just that most websites are
optimised and tested only or mainly under Chrome.Anecdotally..
Firefox was always slower rendering pages compared to other
browsers. On some sites that I visited regularly, using FF was
depressing. Later on, it started to suffer from caching issues
on my machine. This caused a massive system slowdown.Tried
Palemoon (non-blink\webkit, etc). It blazed through pages- even
the heavy ones FF had problems with historically. The rendered
results were spot on too. It was like getting a new
machine.What I'm saying is that we can't blame everything on
pages being optimized for Browser X or Browser Y. Sometimes we
need to call out our favorite browsing application and let them
know this is an issue. Otherwise, they keep losing users based
solely on performance.Having said that, looking forward to
tzahola - 54 minutes ago
I?d appreciate a curated list of software vendors who don?t run
these kind of field tests/experiment/whatever on their users. Extra
points if their products are not filled with bloated
????analytics???? crapware either.
yongjik - 19 minutes ago
Would the author be happier if Chrome/Chromium didn't do these
"field trials", and instead just enabled whatever feature they were
testing for all users, and the author was hit with the same
problem, along with everyone else?When you cut through the
rhetorics, the author is basically complaining that Chromium
decided to update itself. Well, maybe it warrants complaint, but I
fail to see what's such a big deal. (The alternative is millions
using browsers ridden with last year's vulnerabilities.)
the_common_man - 49 minutes ago
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=318572 is the
deusum - 43 minutes ago
Status: WontFix Closed: Nov 2013
otto_ortega - 14 minutes ago
For a developer there is no better browser than Firefox Developer
Edition 58+ at the moment, its new Quantum engine is insanely fast
and the included developers tools are far superior than the ones on
Chrome.I know Firefox had a dark period on which it felt behind
Chrome on most fronts, but those days are over, if you haven't used
it on a while, give it try! you won regret it.
Tyriar - 46 minutes ago
Iridium's stable release is based on Chromium v61 and Chrome is on
v62. Sure they can boast about enhanced privacy, but I'm not so
sure about security unless their base Chromium version is always up
agl - 45 minutes ago
The fact that Chromium runs multiple processes is unrelated to any
field trials. Chromium has always been multi-process; that's why
individual tabs and plugins can crash without taking down the whole
browser. Additionally, multiple processes are needed in order to
implement sandboxing on Linux.Field trials have long been a part of
Chromium too: https://blog.chromium.org/2012/05/changes-to-field-
trials-in.... They are used to experiment with different solutions
or, sometimes, to allow a change to be quickly reverted in the
field if it's causing a problem. You can manually enable/disable
several of these on chrome://flags/ (although it's not advised).
peterwwillis - 10 minutes ago
As lame as Firefox is, it always works when I need it to (unless I
use add-ons). Thanks for sucking the least, Firefox.
oatmealsnap - 7 minutes ago
Check out the Beta, or wait for Firefox Quantum to get released
next week. It's FAST!