On 9/3/18, Hawker <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/2/2018 11:51 AM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote: > >Do what you must but I would switch probably to Chromium then. > > Part of why I am still on Mozilla products is I don't trust > Google/Chromium to not be harvesting my online activity to use to create > a profile of me and sell that information. While I realize it is a > mostly futile effort these days I do try to protect my privacy as best > as realistic. Google doesn't seem safe. > > I am told there is a built without all the google data mining and > privacy invasion stuff but after an hour of searching I couldn't find a > Windows executable version. Any ideas where to get working builds > without the google privacy invasion components?
My question is if it's possible to get a chromium browser without any of the google data mining. I look at stuff like this https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium A number of features or background services communicate with Google servers despite the absence of an associated Google account or compiled-in Google API keys. Furthermore, the normal build process for Chromium involves running Google's own high-level commands that invoke many scripts and utilities, some of which download and use pre-built binaries provided by Google. and wonder about all the chromium based alternative browsers. <rant> Why in the world Mozilla doesn't just make a "all of our data collection will be opt-in" statement and yank the rug out from under chrome is beyond me. As it is, I'm wondering how much longer Firefox will be ... not be relevant since they're not hardly now but.. what? Above 5% in browser market share maybe? </rant> Lee > > > > >> uBlock is really the better product nowadays. >> >> > (which I only use for the increasing number of websites that won't >> work in SM) >> >> I don't see many breakages which are real. Most can be fixed with >> setting the user agent. With most web sites still supporting IE 8 only a >> few really break. Most are google ones and they do it in for Fx too. >> >> > I wonder how soon we will realistically see a Seamonky build with the >> Firefox 60 ESR or newer code. I really don't want to move away from SM, >> but the lack >> >> Maybe 6 months to a year. Firefox has problems of its own and becomes a >> permanent construction camp so anything after 2.57 is off for now. Do >> what you must but I would switch probably to Chromium then. The Fx ui >> degrades with every release now so you can just use the original which >> imho already looks cleaner than Fx. >> >> Locally compiled 2.53 and 2.49.5 both work a champ for me so I don't >> have any need to switch now. Newer web features will probably become a >> problem in a year or two but seriously I don't want things like service >> workers and wasm anyway. I really doubt this will do security any good. >> >> FRG >> >> Hawker wrote: >>> Thank you both for the clear explanation. >>> >>> Sounds like I'm stuck where I am. A few of my ABP filters are now >>> saying "this filter subscriptions requires a newer ABP version...." >>> This is going to be a security risk soon I assume as I fund ABP does a >>> better job keeping add based virus out than my AV products. >>> >>> Alas your comment "Most are a joke compared to their former xul based >>> ones." Is sadly true. Some of the extensions I see in my Firefox >>> install (which I only use for the increasing number of websites that >>> won't work in SM) have way more limited UIs than the XUL version. I'm >>> hoping with time they can reach the functionality of the old versions. >>> Is there something about how they work that means they never will? >>> And a few of my favorite extensions have not been ported. >>> >>> I wonder how soon we will realistically see a Seamonky build with the >>> Firefox 60 ESR or newer code. I really don't want to move away from >>> SM, but the lack of developers to keep the code current is putting the >>> handwriting clearly on the wall for SM's demise. >>> >>> >>> On 8/30/2018 12:43 PM, Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote: >>>> Thunderbird 60 and SeaMonkey 2.57 are/will not be based on 52 code >>>> but on Firefox 60 ESR code. >>>> >>>> Web extensions were never developed with a program like Thunderbird >>>> in mind. TB now adds web extensions apis and support but I doubt they >>>> will be able to make any of the current ad or script blockers work in >>>> the near time. >>>> >>>> If not for developer shortage this would be actually easier for >>>> SeaMonkey which already has a browser in place. But the whole Firefox >>>> implementation is a mess with parts in the browser frontend and parts >>>> in the Gecko backend. >>>> >>>> And for quantum architectural changes. Most was already in 56 and >>>> starting with 57 it was just lets rip this and this and that and this >>>> out. >>>> >>>> It needs to be supported but besides from a few key extensions like >>>> uBlock and NoScript you won't miss much with web extensions. Most are >>>> a joke compared to their former xul based ones. >>>> >>>> FRG >>>> >>>> >>>> NFN Smith wrote: >>>>> Hawker wrote: >>>>>> I have Adblock Plus 2.9.1 installed on Seamonkey. My subscriptions >>>>>> are starting to say I need a newer version to work. I can't seem >>>>>> find a SM compatible version of Adblock to download. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is 2.9.1 (over 1 year old) the last version to work? Where can I >>>>>> find newer versions? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I believe that 2.9.1 is the most recent version that will run in >>>>> Seamonkey, and I get the impression that that one isn't going to get >>>>> any more updates. >>>>> >>>>> I know that I've also been running 2.9.1 in Thunderbird, and it >>>>> works fine in TB 52.x, but on the installation I have that I >>>>> upgraded to Thunderbird 60, Thunderbird disables it. In Thunderbird, >>>>> I believe that v60 is still 52.x code, but where essential updates >>>>> are being backported from Firefox ESR 60. Thus, Thunderbird still >>>>> supports XUL extensions, but for V60, extensions must be tweaked to >>>>> allow for explicit support of V60. >>>>> >>>>> Realistically, until both Seamonkey and Thunderbird can finish the >>>>> move to WebExtensions, users of both are mostly going to limited to >>>>> extensions whose status is essentially frozen in time. There may be >>>>> a some developers who do stuff for Seamonkey or Thunderbird >>>>> explicitly that are continuing to update XUL extensions, but for >>>>> extensions that are primarily Firefox extensions, I think that most >>>>> of the developers are focusing only on what can be done in >>>>> WebExtensions. They won't pull the older XUL extensions (especially >>>>> now that those are being hosted at thunderbird.net, rather than >>>>> addons.mozilla.org, but don't plan on any additional updates. >>>>> Adblock Plus is certainly not the only one, but it's a good example. >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately, both Seamonkey and Thunderbird are still some way >>>>> away from transition to WebExtensions, and other architectural >>>>> changes that Firefox introduced with Quantum. >>>>> >>>>> Smith >>>>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ > support-seamonkey mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey > _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
