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