Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

165 comments

Fanatical (0, Offtopic)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152105)

And yes you have to be fanatical to care about privacy THAT much.

Re:Fanatical (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152223)

Not really, unless you call clearing cookies between browsing sessions fanatical.

Re:Fanatical (5, Insightful)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152303)

I'm increasingly starting to think that Slashdot editors are being underhandedly paid by Google to subtly ridicule anti-Google articles or sentiments. The wording of this summary makes it pretty blatantly obvious that the editor wants to make people who are suspicious of Google appear "fanatical", implying all the baggage that that word carries with it these days.

How is it fanatical to not want to send your data to a private corporation? Would it be fanatical if that corporation was Microsoft, Sony or Universal Studios?

I clear my cookies regularly. What Slashdot calls fanatical I call routine. So I guess that makes me a fanatic.

Re:Fanatical (4, Insightful)

redJag (662818) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152365)

Fanatical people don't think of themselves as fanatical. Only the people that label them fanatical do..

Re:Fanatical (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25152515)

The problem is determining what a reasonable person would call a fanatic. We all think we're reasonable, when honestly I find most of us (myself included) to be essentially unreasonable most of the time.

Calling someone fanatical these days is less about about extremism (for good or ill), and more about casting disrespect.

Re:Fanatical (4, Insightful)

Sancho (17056) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153519)

A reasonable person, or the average person? I don't think that the average person is reasonable.

The average person cares about having the newest car, the newest TV, a house they can't afford, etc. They want to keep up with the Joneses. They measure their own worth as relative to other people's possessions. Their own happiness depends upon being "better" than other people. That's not reasonable. That's why the American economy is in the mess that it's in. We're a society where the goal is to attain money any way you can. If you don't, you're a failure.

Reasonable? My ass.

Re:Fanatical (4, Insightful)

RabidMonkey (30447) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153843)

I won't pick points, but I don't think it's fair to roll 50% of the population into one bucket and assume things about them, right or wrong.

I'm sure you've never, in your entire life, done anything unreasonable, like wanting something because it looked cool, or sounded cool, or because you wanted to be the first kid on the block to have it, or because all of your friends had one.

All general statements are false.

Re:Fanatical (1)

Zashi (992673) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153993)

you're being ironical, yes?

All general statements are false.

Kinda reminds me of a certain quote [xkcdb.com]

Re:Fanatical (5, Funny)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153249)

Only fanatics label other fanatics as being fanatical !

Re:Fanatical (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153375)

Only fanatics debate if other fanatics are fanatical to qualify as fanatics.

And for the record, all the rest of you are fanatics. I'll well adjusted.

Re:Fanatical (1)

kaosfury (1276794) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152419)

I don't see where "privacy fanatics" == suspicious of Google. I fall into the former, and I am suspicious of most online companies.

Re:Fanatical (4, Informative)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152427)

Uhm, because there is a box you have to check to OPT-IN to the program to send them that information.

Re:Fanatical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25153221)

And that box was dishonestly placed under a EULA where it's routine to see a required check box (to agree to the EULA). Sure, you shouldn't check anything you don't read, but that doesn't stop it from being "evil."

Re:Fanatical (1)

Gewalt (1200451) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152719)

You clear your cookies???!?!?!? I could never do that. I like all my cookies very much, and I get very sad when I lose them. All 12 of them. That said, until chrome/iron/whatever gets CS Lite, NoScript and AdBlock+ extensions, they will continue to be useless when compared to Firefox.

You clear your cookies???!?!?!? (3, Funny)

RudeIota (1131331) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153703)

Delete cookies?! [typepad.com]

Re:Fanatical (1)

Mateo13 (1250522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153297)

The article uses the word fanatical. The editor is just summarizing what the original author wrote.

Re:Fanatical (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153365)

I see more anti-Google articles on Slashdot these days, that I seriously doubt on the whole the editors have a secret agenda to make Goolge look good. Individuals have individual opinions. I wouldn't be shocked to learn one editor is extremely pro-Google, and another anti-Google, but I haven't seen a consistent trend, though you might see a consistent trend if you were only looking for the good or bad.

Re:Fanatical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25153541)

I'm increasingly starting to think that Slashdot editors are being underhandedly paid by Google to subtly ridicule anti-Google articles or sentiments.

Are you this guy:

"I noticed today that many Slashdot stories are listed on Google. I thought you were supposed to be a neutral internet party? I can't believe what you have as "news" if you are in cahoots with the "do no evil" gang. Almost everything I used to believe in is on Google now I was hoping that Slashdot would be strong enough to resist the Google money pool but I guess I was naive. Google is going to slowly absorb everything is that ok with you? it doesn't seem so bad when your playing volleyball or bringing your cat to work but it is. A cat is no trade for integrity. Look back at what you used to stand for and not greed or I will have to find a news source that hasn't been swallowed by Google."

Now, I understand your concern with Slashdot's attitude. Slashdot has a definite issues with their bias, but come one: they're paid by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Adobe, CIA, FBI, the Aliens... They must be pretty rich by now.

Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

Re:Fanatical (1)

Incredible Elmo (86263) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153559)

Hey, were you on Disagree Mail [slashdot.org] the other day?

Re:Fanatical (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153569)

Yeah, it couldn't possibly be because you seem ridiculous to most people. It's gotta be a conspiracy!

You're not really doing your cause any favours with that post, you know.

Re:Fanatical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25153769)

I agree with that, actually I've lost a bit of karma just by criticizing Google's privacy policies.

I don't believe that people on slashdot are paid for it, but watching /. over the years it has become my impression that more and more companies have their PR staff post here and/or encourage their employees to submit positive reviews and moderate accordingly when they get points.

Personally, I prefer to post as AC all the time, even though that usually means that the post is less likely to get modded up.

Re:Fanatical (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153831)

I clear my cookies regularly

Why not just set them to clear when you close your browser?

Editors? (2, Informative)

forand (530402) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153995)

So my reading of the original post was that the only thing the editors of Slashdot had added to the submission of Sonnet_XVIII was "Sonnet_XVIII writes." How do you think the editors are responsible for the wording of a submission? Do you assert that a "better" submission was made? It appears to me that you should be annoyed with Sonnet_XVIII not the slashdot editors.

Re:Fanatical (1)

silent_artichoke (973182) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154329)

I clear my cookies regularly. What Slashdot calls fanatical I call routine. So I guess that makes me a fanatic.

That's not fanatical. Fanatical is forking a browser because simply deleting your cookies is not enough. I think you took it too personally.

Re:Fanatical (2, Interesting)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152477)

Bullshit. In the modern surveillance society, you'd have to be stupid to not take every precaution you reasonably can.

Re:Fanatical (5, Funny)

British (51765) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153325)

You're right. Here's an idea for safe browsing. Call it the "one time coffee shop" method.

1. Go to coffee shop & browse away
2. after surfing, torch the coffee house.

You can only do this once per coffee shop. Sadly, Starbucks doesn't supply computers since there's an abundance of said shops.

Re:Fanatical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25153851)

Yeah, but if you keep that up for long you'll get busted for arson. Or run out of coffee shops. Then what will you do? Move on to Waffle Houses?

Re:Fanatical (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153395)

Because we all have so much to hide and fear?

I've been posting using the same name since the pre-internet BBS days. A quick Google will show you on the front page what my real name is, and what city I live in. A halfway thorough search will show you considerably more.

Frankly, I ain't got nothing to hide (besides my live chicken fetishes, but no one knows about that except he who controls my browsing data...oh shit)

Re:Fanatical (1)

craigavonite (918331) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152705)

Since when was it "fanatical" to not want your activities tracked? You wouldn't call it fanatical if I didn't want you to follow me around the streets all day, so nor do I want Google to follow me around the net all day.

Re:Fanatical (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152793)

So don't check the box.

Re:Fanatical (1)

craigavonite (918331) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152871)

I know there's a checkbox to agree to Chrome tracking your activity. My point was that it isn't fanatical to not want to be tracked, whether you have the choice or not.

Re:Fanatical? use Opera (3, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152915)

I configured Opera to clear all cookies at the end of every session. Occasionally, I also clear them during a session.

In Epiphany, I regularly clean out all cookies manually. I do this before and after visiting any e-commerce or financial site, even if I don't conduct any transactions.

It's no more fanatical than using a condom.

Re:Fanatical? use Opera (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25153071)

It's no more fanatical than using a condom.

For the average ./ reader, using a condom is fanatical - it's not as though you can catch anything on your own.

Since when (5, Interesting)

szo (7842) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152117)

we started to call forks a "spin off"?

Re:Since when (5, Insightful)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152161)

Somebody confused their Television terms with their Technical terms.

Re:Since when (5, Funny)

danieltdp (1287734) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153381)

So, I wanna know when chrome's next season will begin. I heard it will be on the Linux channel

Re:Since when (1)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152311)

Since companies like Google started using open source and dumped all their absurd management terms into our lexicon.

Re:Since when (1)

neostorm (462848) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152625)

Well, I'm rather certain the spoon came first, right? So calling a fork a spin off isn't too far from the truth...

Re:Since when (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153577)

I figured the single-tined fork (aka pointed stick) came first. Next was the knife (singled tined fork sharpened for cutting).

Layne

Not Forked Up (2, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152991)

Not at all. If you RTFCB [google.com] you'll know that a major goal of Chrome is to get its technologies and ideas incorporated into other Open Source projects. Actually, that seems to be pretty much the idea, at least at this stage in the product's lifecycle. The product itself is too limited and glitchy for any other purpose. It's not like a lot of people are going to adopt it as their day-to-day browser, not with its minimal feature set and rendering issues.

I suspect the Chrome team is actually quite pleased to see their software adopted by a "competing" project.

I'm no Google fanboy (though I guess I used to be). I'm often quite impatient with their endless betas, their crappy documentation, their buggy products, and their total indifference to the actual software marketplace. But for once I have to admit that they've created something really useful. It's just that the usefulness is not to the end user, it's to the OS developer community.

Re:Not Forked Up (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153275)

I'm curious, what are these 'glitches' and 'rendering issues' you talk of? I've used Chrome for a while and not noticed it misrendering anything (while I am affected by a rendering bug in Firefox). Nor any glitches or crashes.

Re:Not Forked Up (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153759)

I've seen some pages that have issues under Chrome. They aren't on any exposed sites, so I can't send a link, but it's basically dynamic content that returns as XSLT formatted XML. Also, some pages with some unrecognized JavaScript. There were a couple of other pages that I've submitted back to Google, but I don't have the links handy, nor do I remember where they were.

Layne

Re:Not Forked Up (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153951)

I've seen some problems interpreting CSS correctly, both on internal company sites I've worked and on public sites like Netflix. The public site glitches might be from bad standards compliance, but I know mine weren't.

I've also had issues with text input boxes, where Chrome seems to have trouble keeping up with my typing.

Chrome has a bug reporting feature that includes the ability to send the developers a screen shot. Obviously they anticipated exactly this kind of problem.

Translation (4, Informative)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152149)

I only speak a little German. So here is a bery bad translation via babelfish:

SRWare Iron: The browser of the future - based on the free source text " Chromium" - without doubts with the data protection and security Googles Web browser chrome inspires with an extremely fast structure of web page, a slim Design and imaginative functions. The data-security commissioners practice however also criticism, approximately because of the production of a clear user ID or the transmission from inputs google for the generation of search proposals. SRWare Iron is a genuine alternative. The browser basedly on the Chromium source text and offers so the same basic functions as chrome - however without the criticized points, which concern the data protection. We could provide from there a browser, with which you can use immediately the innovative features, without having to think about the keeping of your privacy. We would like to leave and place our users at our work sharings the browser free of charge to the download under the name " SRWare Iron" in the net. What makes Iron concretely differently than chrome? Read here.

Re:Translation (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25152423)

Funny how German though babelfish reads a lot like corporate marketing speak.

Add the word leverage somewhere and you could have fooled me.

Removing Unique User ID (4, Insightful)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152181)

That alone makes it far superior to Chrome.

Re:Removing Unique User ID (1)

sH4RD (749216) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152531)

Actually you can just use Chromium (the open source project for Chrome), as far as I can tell by using it for a few minutes there seem to be no unique user id's transmitted.

Re:Removing Unique User ID (1)

GringoCroco (889095) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152561)

Could you elaborate on that?

Did I understand that correctly: Chrome generates a UUID for each instalation or for each user on the system who runs Chrome?

Re:Removing Unique User ID (2, Informative)

denominateur (194939) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152635)

Judging by the comparative table on the SRWare page, it does indeed.

Re:Removing Unique User ID (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25154017)

Google Chrome installs into the user's profile folder, not in the Program Files folder. Each user has his own installation, thus each user has a unique ID. If Chrome is uninstalled and reinstalled later, the previous ID persists.

Better name (5, Funny)

bennybertow (903069) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152185)

They should have called it "Tinfoil" instead...

Re:Better name (3, Insightful)

fizzding (1171839) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152255)

I dunno... "He's hiding something, clamp him in irons!" sounds about right to me.

Re:Better name (5, Funny)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152327)

If you consider clearing cookies and basic privacy to be tinfoil type material, then may I have your email address? My ideas will intrigue you and I think you would like to subscribe to my newsletter.

Re:Better name (3, Insightful)

genghisjahn (1344927) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152347)

Wait til they get a load of my Transparent Aluminum Browser...it will alter the future!

Re:Better name (1)

santiagoanders (1357681) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152785)

Wait til they get a load of my Transparent Aluminum Browser...it will alter the future!

Does it also come from the future via space-ship time travel?

Re:Better name (1)

Drooling Iguana (61479) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153423)

How do we know they didn't invent the thing?

Re:Better name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25152803)

It's German. Germans are into Metal. Iron's a metal, so it fits.

Re:Better name (1)

antique future (1339361) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152891)

I think Bondo [wikipedia.org] would fit a bit better :)

Re:Better name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25153385)

... sounds better than paranoid wankaddict version.

Re:Better name (1)

SL1200MKII (1263800) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153737)

They should have called it "Tinfoil" instead...

Here in da hood, we be makin r own version of dis browza called "Bling", ya heard! U can get plugins for it like "Dubs" and "Spinners". this shit is hot to death son!

Alert me when it runs on Mac and/or Linux. (3, Insightful)

greenguy (162630) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152211)

I promise not to make "dupe" comments.

Re:Alert me when it runs on Mac and/or Linux. (1)

aldm (1005143) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152623)

Or OpenBSD.

Re:Alert me when it runs on Mac and/or Linux. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25153719)

An even better measure of a browser than running on OpenBSD is being distributed with OpenBSD. The only browser so far that's in the base system instead of ports is lynx. Not even links, elinks, Links+, Amaya, or w3m have made the cut.

It would be awesome if Chrome or any other big, heavyweight browser could get ported, audited, and approved for distribution with core OpenBSD.

Language (4, Informative)

craigavonite (918331) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152235)

The SRWare site and the installer are in German, but the browser itself (menu's, etc.) is in English, just for anyone thinking you're going to have to hunt out an EnUs addon or something

Re:Language (1)

forand (530402) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154023)

But is the source in German?

Sorry had to do it.

What's Next? (3, Funny)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152267)

Tin Hat?

Titanium?

--
Oh Well, Bad Karma and all . . .

Re:What's Next? (0, Redundant)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152493)

That's right mod me Redundant - even though it's not. Just send my Karma to the dark ages.
At least one person, once, thought it was funny.

--
Oh Well, Bad Karma and all . . .

Re:What's Next? (1)

TinFoilMan (1371973) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152851)

I thought it was funny.

Germans? Privacy? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25152345)

Must be the rise of the 3rd Reich again!

It answers them? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25152449)

aimed at people who are concerned or have questions about Google's policies for collecting usage data.

So if I have questions, it answers them? Cool. I can never decode those EULAs.

Que? (1)

Rie Beam (632299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152469)

So, um, thanks for giving no actual information about this new revision, with the only real reference a German website with a download link. I guess this could be an incentive to learn Deutsch, but for the average /. reader, this is just an advertisement.

Anyway, here's a Babelfish translated link:

http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=bf-home&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.srware.net%2Fsoftware_srware_iron.php&lp=de_en&btnTrUrl=Translate [yahoo.com]

Translated FAQ (2, Informative)

Rie Beam (632299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152639)

What is Iron?

Iron is an Internet Browser, like Internet Explorer, Firefox, or Opera. It is based off of the free online source code of "Chromium".

I read that there are tools which attempt to make Chrome anonymous. Why shouldn't I simply use these?

There are worthwhile Freeware tools which offer similar functionality. However, these do not work from source and offer only limited control. Functions like the URL tracker cannot be switched off. This only offers variable security.

Iron is free -- how do you finance it?

In order to keep Iron financed, we place an advertisement on the front page. We also ask for donations if you like the product -- it would make us happy.

How can one be sure that Iron doesn't inadvertantly send data?

This is a concern. We log all incoming and outgoing packets and did not detect any precarious activity. You can also test this yourself.

PS: The harmless (DNS Vorabruf?) has been disabled based on standard, since it can possibly be abused by Spammern.

Do you offer uncompiled source code for Chromium?

This would be useless, because Chromium Builds likewise contain the offending source code. We only offer the modified Iron.

Cherman (1)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152921)

This is a wonderful translation, because now I have a new exclamation: Achtung! Spammern!

Re:Cherman (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153805)

So, is that what you call e-mails you get advertising U2's latest album?

Layne

I know nozzing! (1)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154075)

I don't get much spam. When I do, I want something rough-sounding to bark.

Don't listen to U2, so yes, those would qualify.

*must buy pickelhaube helmet for web surfing*

Re:Translated FAQ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25153941)

DNS Vorabruf : dns pre-caching

You don't trust Google... (5, Funny)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152555)

But you are expected to trust some obscure German software company. Right.

The sad thing is, some of you will (but then, you already use Windows...)

Re:You don't trust Google... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25152655)

you are a clown. trust is a non issue. Google is clear about what they take from you. If the Germans lie in what they claim it will be quickly discovered. I encourage you to recognize that everyone doesn't have the opportunity to chose the OS they must "work" with. So, in summary, eat shit and die you mentally disturbed clown.

Re:You don't trust Google... (2, Insightful)

neuromanc3r (1119631) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152835)

But you are expected to trust some obscure German software company. Right.)

You don't have to. You the source code is available for download. (And you could obviously monitor your traffic see if the browser phones home)

Re:You don't trust Google... (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152843)

Well, it said it was "aimed" at such people, not that it was what they wanted. Who better to aim snooping software at than people who don't want to be snooped? Anyway, the real deal would be called "Coppercage" or something.

A German company SRWare has developed a Google Chrome Spin off called Iron aimed at people who are concerned or have questions about Google's policies for collecting usage data.

Re:You don't trust Google... (1)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152935)

But you are expected to trust some obscure German software company. Right.

The sad thing is, some of you will (but then, you already use Windows...)

Hey, you! That's not nice. Some of us don't have a choice in our workplace OS.

You insensitive clod.

Their promises are as good as their source (3, Insightful)

thisfred (643716) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152557)

So they take the open source code, and redistribute it as an executable only. Of course completely legal under the BSD license, but wouldn't a privacy nut wonder why they give away the application for free but not the source code?

Re:Their promises are as good as their source (4, Informative)

denominateur (194939) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152657)

The source code is available.

Re:Their promises are as good as their source (1)

thisfred (643716) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152741)

Ah indeed, my bad...

Re:Their promises are as good as their source (1)

AntmanGX (927781) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152717)

The link to the source code is right underneath the link to the installer.

Re:Their promises are as good as their source (1)

redxxx (1194349) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152825)

Their source is on their download('downloaden') page.

Re:Their promises are as good as their source (2, Informative)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153069)

Um, isn't the source code also downloadable from their site?
http://www.srware.net/software_srware_iron_download.php [srware.net]

Look at the bottom - the source is available in 4 parts, it seems.

The differences (5, Informative)

nephridium (928664) | more than 5 years ago | (#25152983)

According to the German webpage [srware.net] there are several significant improvements:

* unlike the current Chrome beta it uses the newest Webkit version of the current Chromium build

* it does not generate a unique ID of every client for use by Google

* no installation timestamp ill be generated for google

* no "suggest feature" that phones home to google (for help) what you type into the address bar

* will not phone home to google in case you mistyped a URL

* no phoning home for error reporting

* does not send RLZ tracking info to google, e.g. about when and where Chrome was downloaded

* NO frickin updater that installs itself as a startup app to run in the background

* does not load google homepage in background when the browser is loaded

Of course they provide the source code for your own tinkering as well, just don't hammer the poor fellas (more than they already get hammered right now ;)) as according to their page their current revenue only comes from the ads on the page and hopefully some donations by people showing their appreciation of their work.

Re:The differences (1)

pkphilip (6861) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153587)

I find it really funny that the only ads on their site comes in from Google! :)

Re:The differences (2, Informative)

nephridium (928664) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154107)

Just noticed that the source code [srware.net] is hosted on rapidshare - so hammer away and compile ;)

Re:The differences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25154275)

Babel fish translation of Chrome v. Iron comparison [66.196.80.202] (yeah, let's not use google's translator for this task...). The above summary is good.

failzorS5? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25153005)

ofone single puny That 7hey can hold *BSD is deadp.

Javascript is a privacy problem if not controlled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25153083)

Boring, Javascript is a privacy problem if not user controlled. If they want to change and challenge Chrome/Firefox they should include a least NoScript or an extension for plug ins. Also, if they really mean it, they must provide a repository and should try to build the browser on all platforms. This looks like boring marketing, but please post your patches, it is good to see this small bugs fixed anyway.

IRC log from Iron (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25153421)

It's unfortunate that this guy decided to fork rather than submit bug fixes (or even file bugs). Several of the issues he identified are bugs, not intentional behavior in Chromium. It's supposed to be the case that anything that talks to a third-party server is controllable via preferences and options. He ran into a few that slipped through and decided to do a fork for self-publicity and $$ rather than trying to help the project. I see no problem with having forks in general, but this one seems unnecessary at this point.

Here's an excerpt from an IRC log on chromium-dev from a week ago when people asked him why he wasn't filing bugs or patches:

Iron: because a fork will bring a lot of publicity to my person and my homepage
Iron: that means: a lot of money too ;)
Iron: i dont take money for my fork
Iron: but i have adsense on my page ;)
Iron: a lot of visitor -> a lot of clicka > a lot of money ;)
Iron: we are here in germany
Iron: the press will love my fork
Iron: i talked to much journalists already
Iron: to remove all things in source talking to google ;)
Iron: nobody here trusts google
Iron: the german people say: google is very evil

Re:IRC log from Iron (1)

Nate Fox (1271) | more than 5 years ago | (#25154271)

please mod parent up. a friend of mine works on chrome @ google and said the exact same thing: this guy merely wants to make money via adsense

good good (1)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153429)

So, questions, #1 "source code available" - what license? #2: Does it need a friking installer or can I just unzip it and run (aka it doesn't mess with the registry) If it is still FLOSS and doesn't touch the registry, it would be a great choice.

Iron is for the sane (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25153471)

Chrome is for the insane.

Why??? (1)

Real1tyCzech (997498) | more than 5 years ago | (#25153849)

Seems kind of pointless considering;

If you don't want tracking, don't check the box during install;

Even if you *did* check the box, you can go into "incognito" mode to avoid sending usage statistics.

looks like Google already had that covered and it looks like this edition covered here is solely for those who refuse to use anything with a "Google" tag on it.

Does it come with a personal wool-trimmer?

Acid3 Test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25153871)

Just for the hell of it, I tested Acid3 with the latest Chrome (0.2.153.1) and Iron on Vista.

Chrome: 78/100

Iron: 79/100

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...