Clément Lassieur writes:
> Hello :-)
>
> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Clément Lassieur skribis:
>>
>>> So the question is: can we push the Chromium package? I've read it's
>>> almost ready[2]. It's probably far better than everything we have,
>>> despite not being totally
Hello :-)
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Hello,
>
> Clément Lassieur skribis:
>
>> So the question is: can we push the Chromium package? I've read it's
>> almost ready[2]. It's probably far better than everything we have,
>> despite not being totally 'finished'. Maybe we can add what's left to
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Hello,
>
> Benjamin Slade skribis:
>
>> Speaking from a user-perspective, I would be very much in favour of
>> having modern Firefox and Chromium (appropriately de-Googled as much as
>> possible, of course) as actual Guix offerings.
>>
>> And while there are lots of
Hi,
Mark H Weaver skribis:
> I admit that it's unclear whether or not those data transmissions could
> reasonably be called 'spyware', but at the very least their existence
> provides cover for spyware added later, by conditioning users to accept
> data transmission to Google when it hasn't
Joshua Branson transcribed 1.4K bytes:
> Nils Gillmann writes:
>
> > Joshua Branson transcribed 2.3K bytes:
> >> Amin Bandali writes:
> >>
> >> > Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> >> >
> >>
> >> There is also the Brave browser
> >>
> >> https://brave.com/
> >
> > It would very likely not be accepted
Nils Gillmann writes:
> Joshua Branson transcribed 2.3K bytes:
>> Amin Bandali writes:
>>
>> > Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>> >
>>
>> There is also the Brave browser
>>
>> https://brave.com/
>
> It would very likely not be accepted in Guix. At least by my
> interpretation of what we have
Marius Bakke writes:
> If this package gets into Guix, I think we
> should add system tests (or similar) to catch regressions in the
> unsolicited network traffic area.
That’s an excellent idea, though it may be difficult to accomplish. I
wouldn’t know how to do this reliably as the
Marius Bakke writes:
> Amin Bandali writes:
>
>> As for the "lagging too far behind upstream" issue, that doesn't
>> seem to be the case anymore: looking at releases on [3] and [4]
>> it looks like ungoogled-chromium's latest shipped release matches
>> the latest released chromium version.
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> Hi Mark,
>
>> Mark H Weaver writes:
>>
>>> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>>>
The TODO list for convenience:
* There is still some data transmitted when starting the browser for the
first time. It seems related to the "domain_reliability" component.
Amin Bandali writes:
> Nils Gillmann writes:
>
>> Please read into the chromium thread or search locally through it -
>> Marius already had some comments on ungoogled-chromium. Our chromium
>> browser is not just chromium taken from upstream. Many (maintained)
>> patches are taken and applied.
Hi Mark,
> Mark H Weaver writes:
>
>> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>>
>>> The TODO list for convenience:
>>>
>>> * There is still some data transmitted when starting the browser for the
>>> first time. It seems related to the "domain_reliability" component.
>>> * Remove remaining "Web Store"
Mark H Weaver writes:
> The reason I am so sensitive to this issue is that Debian included
> nonfree software in their kernels for many years, despite it being a
> widely known violation of the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
> Apparently it was deemed sufficient to make a "best effort" to
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 01:33:40AM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> > 1 There is still some data transmitted when starting the browser for the
> > first time. It seems related to the "domain_reliability" component.
> > 3 Opening settings transmits a bunch of data, the
Mark H Weaver writes:
> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>
>> The TODO list for convenience:
>>
>> * There is still some data transmitted when starting the browser for the
>> first time. It seems related to the "domain_reliability" component.
>> * Remove remaining "Web Store" links. Currently I've
Hi Ricardo,
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> The TODO list for convenience:
>
> * There is still some data transmitted when starting the browser for the
> first time. It seems related to the "domain_reliability" component.
> * Remove remaining "Web Store" links. Currently I've only found it in
>
On Sat, Sep 01, 2018 at 16:13:53 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> I have to say that Andreas, Mark, Marius, and others who worked on
> IceCat and Chromium packaging are heroes: it’s a huge effort and we can
> be grateful for that!
I agree---I am very grateful for their work!
--
Mike Gerwitz
Joshua Branson transcribed 2.3K bytes:
> Amin Bandali writes:
>
> > Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> >
> >>> So the question is: can we push the Chromium package? I've read it's
> >>> almost ready[2].
> >>
> >> The TODO list for convenience:
> >>
> >> --8<---cut
Nils Gillmann writes:
> Please read into the chromium thread or search locally through it -
> Marius already had some comments on ungoogled-chromium. Our chromium
> browser is not just chromium taken from upstream. Many (maintained)
> patches are taken and applied.
Thanks for mentioning this.
On Sat, Sep 01, 2018 at 04:13:53PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> I have to say that Andreas, Mark, Marius, and others who worked on
> IceCat and Chromium packaging are heroes: it’s a huge effort and we can
> be grateful for that!
So many heroes here!
Pj.
Amin Bandali writes:
> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>
>>> So the question is: can we push the Chromium package? I've read it's
>>> almost ready[2].
>>
>> The TODO list for convenience:
>>
>> --8<---cut here---start->8---
>> * There is still some data transmitted
Ludovic Courtès transcribed 507 bytes:
> Hi,
>
> Amin Bandali skribis:
>
> > I highly recommend looking into ungoogled-chromium [0], which
> > "modifies Google Chromium to remove Google integration and
> > enhance privacy, control, and transparency". It's not exactly a
> > fork, but rather a
Hello,
Benjamin Slade skribis:
> Speaking from a user-perspective, I would be very much in favour of
> having modern Firefox and Chromium (appropriately de-Googled as much as
> possible, of course) as actual Guix offerings.
>
> And while there are lots of objectionable things about the www in
Hi,
Amin Bandali skribis:
> I highly recommend looking into ungoogled-chromium [0], which
> "modifies Google Chromium to remove Google integration and
> enhance privacy, control, and transparency". It's not exactly a
> fork, but rather a series of patches and modifications they apply
> to each
Am 31.08.2018 um 01:38 schrieb Benjamin Slade:
> Speaking from a user-perspective, I would be very much in favour of
> having modern Firefox and Chromium (appropriately de-Googled as much as
> possible, of course) as actual Guix offerings.
+1 (I know, building Firefox is very, very tremulous.
Speaking from a user-perspective, I would be very much in favour of
having modern Firefox and Chromium (appropriately de-Googled as much as
possible, of course) as actual Guix offerings.
And while there are lots of objectionable things about the www in 2018,
I don't think being a GNU follower is
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 07:14:37 +0200, Clément Lassieur wrote:
> The problem is a technical problem. We would have with Icecat 60 the
> same packaging difficulties we have with Firefox 60. Whether we choose
> Icecat or Firefox is unrelated.
Right, which is why I was curious if there were
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 09:07:39 +, Nils Gillmann wrote:
> Mike Gerwitz transcribed 1.8K bytes:
>> But as was stated in another thread, once we _do_ have an updated IceCat
>> source distribution, we need it packaged for Guix, and that is quite the
>> undertaking. Has anyone pursued packaging
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>> So the question is: can we push the Chromium package? I've read it's
>> almost ready[2].
>
> The TODO list for convenience:
>
> --8<---cut here---start->8---
> * There is still some data transmitted when starting the browser for the
Ludovic Courtès transcribed 990 bytes:
> Nils Gillmann skribis:
>
> > Ludovic Courtès transcribed 331 bytes:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Clément Lassieur skribis:
> >>
> >> > The problem is a technical problem. We would have with Icecat 60 the
> >> > same packaging difficulties we have with Firefox
Nils Gillmann skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès transcribed 331 bytes:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Clément Lassieur skribis:
>>
>> > The problem is a technical problem. We would have with Icecat 60 the
>> > same packaging difficulties we have with Firefox 60. Whether we choose
>> > Icecat or Firefox is
Hi Clément,
>>> So the question is: can we push the Chromium package? I've read it's
>>> almost ready[2].
>>
>> The TODO list for convenience:
>>
>> --8<---cut here---start->8---
>> * There is still some data transmitted when starting the browser for the
>>
Nils Gillmann writes:
> Ludovic Courtès transcribed 331 bytes:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Clément Lassieur skribis:
>>
>> > The problem is a technical problem. We would have with Icecat 60 the
>> > same packaging difficulties we have with Firefox 60. Whether we choose
>> > Icecat or Firefox is unrelated.
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Hi,
>
> Clément Lassieur skribis:
>
>> The problem is a technical problem. We would have with Icecat 60 the
>> same packaging difficulties we have with Firefox 60. Whether we choose
>> Icecat or Firefox is unrelated.
>
> That means pulling a number of Rust
Ludovic Courtès transcribed 331 bytes:
> Hi,
>
> Clément Lassieur skribis:
>
> > The problem is a technical problem. We would have with Icecat 60 the
> > same packaging difficulties we have with Firefox 60. Whether we choose
> > Icecat or Firefox is unrelated.
>
> That means pulling a number
Hello,
Clément Lassieur skribis:
> So the question is: can we push the Chromium package? I've read it's
> almost ready[2]. It's probably far better than everything we have,
> despite not being totally 'finished'. Maybe we can add what's left to
> do as a TODO and fix the package later?
As
Hi,
Clément Lassieur skribis:
> The problem is a technical problem. We would have with Icecat 60 the
> same packaging difficulties we have with Firefox 60. Whether we choose
> Icecat or Firefox is unrelated.
That means pulling a number of Rust dependencies, is that right?
Thanks,
Ludo’.
Nils Gillmann transcribed 1.3K bytes:
> Mike Gerwitz transcribed 1.8K bytes:
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:03:07 +0200, Clément Lassieur wrote:
> > > Firefox 52 isn't supported anymore upstream[1] and we don't have a
> > > package for Firefox 60. Currently the only alternative is Epiphany but
>
Mike Gerwitz transcribed 1.8K bytes:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:03:07 +0200, Clément Lassieur wrote:
> > Firefox 52 isn't supported anymore upstream[1] and we don't have a
> > package for Firefox 60. Currently the only alternative is Epiphany but
> > it's close to unusable (it crashes every 5
Hi Ricardo,
Thank you for your reply.
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> Hi Clément,
>
>> Firefox 52 isn't supported anymore upstream[1] and we don't have a
>> package for Firefox 60. Currently the only alternative is Epiphany but
>> it's close to unusable (it crashes every 5 minutes, and sometimes
>>
Hi Clément,
> Firefox 52 isn't supported anymore upstream[1] and we don't have a
> package for Firefox 60. Currently the only alternative is Epiphany but
> it's close to unusable (it crashes every 5 minutes, and sometimes
> freezes my computer).
I’m surprised to hear that you’ve had problems
Amirouche Boubekki writes:
>> The problem is all users
>> that are not GNU followers (and some GNU followers like me) who need a
>> modern browser.
>
> Out of curiosity, please let us know what you need from the "modern
> browser"?
>
> On my side, I need a debugger for doing web frontends.
I
Hi Mike,
Mike Gerwitz writes:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:03:07 +0200, Clément Lassieur wrote:
>> Firefox 52 isn't supported anymore upstream[1] and we don't have a
>> package for Firefox 60. Currently the only alternative is Epiphany but
>> it's close to unusable (it crashes every 5 minutes,
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:03:07 +0200, Clément Lassieur wrote:
> Firefox 52 isn't supported anymore upstream[1] and we don't have a
> package for Firefox 60. Currently the only alternative is Epiphany but
> it's close to unusable (it crashes every 5 minutes, and sometimes
> freezes my computer).
Le jeu. 30 août 2018 à 00:35, Clément Lassieur a écrit :
>
> Hi Amirouche,
>
> Thanks for your answer.
>
> Amirouche Boubekki writes:
>
> > Let's choose our battle wisely. I want to remind that the core of the
> > guix users are GNU followers and are also anything but pro web or pro
> > web
Hi Amirouche,
Thanks for your answer.
Amirouche Boubekki writes:
> Let's choose our battle wisely. I want to remind that the core of the
> guix users are GNU followers and are also anything but pro web or pro
> web browser or a variation of that. I don't say every GNU follower is
> against the
Hello all :]
I will confess that if I use Ubuntu today, long story short, it's
because of the web browser.
I could not find my way around patchelf so I gave up and installed Ubuntu.
The matter relates to me a lot!
Le mer. 29 août 2018 à 11:03, Clément Lassieur a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> Firefox 52
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:03:07AM +0200, Clément Lassieur wrote:
> Firefox 52 isn't supported anymore upstream[1] and we don't have a
> package for Firefox 60. Currently the only alternative is Epiphany but
> it's close to unusable (it crashes every 5 minutes, and sometimes
> freezes my
Clément Lassieur writes:
> Hi,
>
> Firefox 52 isn't supported anymore upstream[1] and we don't have a
> package for Firefox 60. Currently the only alternative is Epiphany but
> it's close to unusable (it crashes every 5 minutes, and sometimes
> freezes my computer).
>
> So the question is: can
Hi,
Firefox 52 isn't supported anymore upstream[1] and we don't have a
package for Firefox 60. Currently the only alternative is Epiphany but
it's close to unusable (it crashes every 5 minutes, and sometimes
freezes my computer).
So the question is: can we push the Chromium package? I've read
49 matches
Mail list logo
