On 2021-01-21 10:13 a.m., dieter wrote:

I do not use Sync but I use chromium. Therefore please keep chromium.

+1

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021, Paulo Silva wrote:

Le jeu. 21 janv. 2021 à 15:14, James Knott a écrit :

...

On 2021-01-21 10:13 a.m., dieter wrote:

...

I do not use Sync but I use chromium. Therefore please keep chromium.

+1

+1

+1 I use Chromium regularly and would miss it. Best regards, Daniel

Am Donnerstag, 21. Januar 2021, 19:14:24 CET schrieb James Knott:

On 2021-01-21 10:13 a.m., dieter wrote:

...

I do not use Sync but I use chromium. Therefore please keep chromium.

+1 +1

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 04:30:45PM +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote:

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 02:57:27PM +0000, Callum Farmer wrote:

...

I am reviewing (asking for opinions) whether Chromium should remain in the distro, as are my equivalents at other Linux distributions since the announcement of Chrome Sync being removed. I have already removed the keys needed for Chrome Sync to work from the openSUSE packages.

So, we either keep Chromium without Sync or we ditch it.

We also have the option of packaging an open source Chromium derivative that has Sync (i think Brave does, not 100%).

So, please reply with opinions.

Please keep, even with Sync (did not use it). without Sync I meant.

Ciao, Marcus

On 1/21/21 4:37 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:

Hello,

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 02:57:27PM +0000, Callum Farmer wrote:

...

I am reviewing (asking for opinions) whether Chromium should remain in the distro, as are my equivalents at other Linux distributions since the announcement of Chrome Sync being removed. I have already removed the keys needed for Chrome Sync to work from the openSUSE packages.

So, we either keep Chromium without Sync or we ditch it.

We also have the option of packaging an open source Chromium derivative that has Sync (i think Brave does, not 100%). I think Google is making it clear that Chromium is not meant to be used.

Do they? Like is there a statement or are you inferring from their nudging people towards Chrome? Cheerrs,   Daniel

-- Daniel Molkentin Senior Software Engineeer System Boot and Init SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg) Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer

I agree with Michal, Sync was the main reason I used Chromium. Now I have to go with Chrome. m. On štvrtok 21. januára 2021 16:37:44 CET Michal Suchánek wrote:

I think Google is making it clear that Chromium is not meant to be used.

Migrating to a derivative is the only way long term.

Otherwise we will be fighting with upstream.

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:17:12PM +0100, Matěj Cepl wrote:

Michal Hlavac píše v Út 26. 01. 2021 v 21:58 +0100:

...

I agree with Michal, Sync was the main reason I used Chromium. Now I have to go with Chrome.

Or Firefox, where Firefox Sync just without problems (and yes, there is perfectly working Firefox both for Android and iPhone).

I am not particularly concerned about Google Sync. I do not want to use this kind of service. However, the overall theme is - ignoring bugs - ignoring feature requests (minor, with patches provided) - removing features Overall the Chrome upstream is bad in relation to users, and the project is not small enough to take over maintainership or keep maintaining a fork. Others that maintain forks do exist so we should make use of their efforts to get better Chrome-like browser with the low-level features that are available in Chrome and without the blobs and platform availability restrictions. Thanks Michal

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 01:12:40PM +0100, Vojtěch Zeisek wrote:

Dne středa 27. ledna 2021 12:52:45 CET, Michal Suchánek napsal(a):

...

However, the overall theme is - ignoring bugs - ignoring feature requests (minor, with patches provided) - removing features Overall the Chrome upstream is bad in relation to users, and the project is not small enough to take over maintainership or keep maintaining a fork. Others that maintain forks do exist so we should make use of their efforts to get better Chrome-like browser with the low-level features that are available in Chrome and without the blobs and platform availability restrictions.

I mainly use Firefox, which I like much more than Chromium. Opera is since its owner change no-go. Sometime I use Vivaldi. Good, but not fully OSS. Packman contains some terribly outdated version. Package from official web installs repo, it works well. Sometimes I use also Falkon. Seems to be working well, has usable ad blocker. I just wonder if its core has all security patches... I don't know Brave, might be I should try. Anyway, how alternatives do we have? For some reliable and secure full-featured tool?

There is some pretty good overview on https://chromium.woolyss.com/ Brave which was suggested in this thread is listed as opensource there, and although there were some controversies around Brave-specific features initially these should be resolved by now. My main use case for Chromium is the alternative rendering engine + media support that works better than Firefox for some sites and cross-platform availability of these (as opposed to Chrome). I would assume that other browsers based on Chromium provide that as well but unlike Chromium the upstream is willing to implement non-Chrome features that make the browser more usable. I do not use any of the Chrome-based browsers nor do I have insight into their security update policies, though. Thanks Michal

Michal Suchánek schrieb:

However, the overall theme is

- ignoring bugs - ignoring feature requests (minor, with patches provided) - removing features

Overall the Chrome upstream is bad in relation to users, and the project is not small enough to take over maintainership or keep maintaining a fork.

Yes, the problem with Chromium (and all software based on it) is that it's what I call "throw-over-the-wall" software. It may be released under an open source license, but it is created inside Google and just released out there to give an impression of being nice and open while real community interaction is not appreciated. Now, it's not always nice and peachy with Mozilla either (I've been in that community for 20 years, I have experienced and seen much) but overall, you'll see that the way they treat the community is very different and contributions are for the most part really appreciated. Rants in bugs will not be treated well either (not sure if they are anywhere) and some decisions are made that are not always appreciated by everyone (also, same as in most projects, esp. large ones), but overall, community is being taken way more seriously. In the end, Firefox is the only really FLOSS browser with any substantial usage. And despite being deeply ingrained in its community, that makes me sad sometimes, but I also know how complex a browser is nowadays, as it's pretty much a "web runtime" as well as really a "user agent" on the web. Unfortunately, Mozilla has not made it easy for others to reuse modules of Firefox (like the Gecko engine, or the SpiderMonkey JS runtime), so there's little other software building on it, and not many other specialty or alternative browsers based on it, other than Tor Browser, that is. But at least it's one serious FLOSS browser we have there. Would have been great if the two companies that abandoned their own browser engines in the last years (Opera and Microsoft) would have opened up their code, as maybe that could have been the basis of good alternatives (well, at least in the Opera case - not sure if what MS had would have ever made a good base for anything, but only the code would be able to tell that story). KaiRo

On Saturday 2021-01-30 01:06, Robert Kaiser wrote:

Yes, the problem with Chromium (and all software based on it) is that it's what I call "throw-over-the-wall" software. It may be released under an open source license, but it is created inside Google and just released out there to give an impression of being nice and open while real community interaction is not appreciated.

Just as "open source" is not linguistically free/libre source (that point having been proven most recently by Elastic), open source does not necessarily mean open arms or open development. People need to stop adding more and more interpretations to the "open" in "open source" and developing (false) expectations from it.

Would have been great if the two companies that abandoned their own browser engines in the last years (Opera and Microsoft) would have opened up their code, as maybe that could have been the basis of good alternatives

Doubtful. When seemingly no one is encouraged to fork chromium or firefox and then work on that, why would you think anyone would even bother with a different browser base (one that is now even abandoned)?

Rodney Baker composed on 2021-02-01 00:14 (UTC+1030):

Robert Kaiser wrote:

...

[...] Unfortunately, Mozilla has not made it easy for others to reuse modules of Firefox (like the Gecko engine, or the SpiderMonkey JS runtime), so there's little other software building on it, and not many other specialty or alternative browsers based on it, other than Tor Browser, that is. But at least it's one serious FLOSS browser we have there. [...] Actually, there is Pale Moon - a Firefox derivative based of an earlier version of Firefox with security patches back-ported (to keep it up-to-date security/vulnerability-wise) while still supporing NPAPI plugins (Java, Flash) for those that really need it. Performance is also somewhat better than later version of Firefox (less resource-hungry).

It is available on OBS, but not on any "release" repos (only Factory/ Experimental or private repos).

I had a lot of trouble with those, so switched to using the upstream binaries. PM does a lot of CPU pegging, so needs a lot more restarting than SeaMonkey, which can go for days or weeks without trouble. -- Evolution as taught in public schools, like religion, is based on faith, not on science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/

thanks for sharing… https://mstwotoes.com/