Mayayana wrote:
"WayFarer" wrote

| Iridium Browser

I'm curious what's so good about it. First the download
page malfunctioned because I have javascript disabled.
Yet the page doesn't need javascript. With CSS disabled
it appeared just fine and I was able to download.

Then I unpacked the download and started it up. It
immediately tried to call home without asking:

88.198.180.164

Then I decided to look at the settings. (There's
nothing else to look at. The "hamburger button"
doesn't give me an option to show the menu bar,
so there's literally nothing unless I get to the
settings.
Settings shows "Loading..." Periodically a window
comes up that says "Untitled" failed to load. Kill it
or Wait? I click Kill It. The message window sits
there, unresponsive.

I know that Google think they have the right to
break all rules with software behavior, user
preferences, etc, but I don't see why people doing
an OSS version of Chrome wouldn't get their act
together a bit better. It indicates to me that they
really like Google's stuff and just want to make their
own version of it.

Given that it wants to call home and apparently
won't even let me see a settings window without
logging into the mother ship (!), their boasts about
privacy don't seem to make sense.

On the bright side, I got the portable version, so
it was easy to throw away.

The IP maps to:

IP address: 88.198.180.164
hostname: ir-191.iridiumbrowser.de
ISP: Hetzner Online GmbH
Country: Germany

So it is calling home. Not a big deal for a Chromium based browser.

For a Chromium family browser, the URL in that call home
should have a unique identifier. My copy of SRWare Iron
wastes no time reporting in to its site.

I don't see how anyone can reasonably expect a source tree
with 600,000 files in it, and God knows how many developers,
how a couple guys in their moms basement can modify the source
for that, and make something "strikingly different".

And if investors have any money to throw at an idea like
this (so you can hire 200 developers to really make something
out of it), they expect a return on their investment. And the
only way to do that is with datamining or advertising tricks.

This makes the whole browser selection process rather simple.

1) Determine which "family" it comes from.

2) Assume minimal changes.

3) Not be surprised when it behaves just like the master
it's cloned from.

And that's why threads like this ones, are doomed
from the start.

It's like asking if there is a "good, mass produced car".
And getting into arguments about whether the chrome plating
on an Audi is thicker than on a Lexus. The general answer
to the question is, "they're all designed the same way,
to maximize profit". That's why you'll find a good mix
of brands, rusting out in some farmers back 40 acres.
Could they make a vehicle that lasts ? They could.
But what kind of businessman is going to do that ?

Now, this is an example of a vehicle that lasts.
It was built in 1946. It's a diesel electric locomotive (little
more than a yard engine), but it still goes. And the guy who
maintained it, spent his whole career doing so. Think how
many times you'd have to take apart that diesel and
rebuild it, between 1946 and 2011. The guy who says
it's still fit to run, is 93 years old.

https://i.cbc.ca/1.4590218.152184668...pg?imwidth=752

You're not going to find a browser-equivalent to that.

Just the fact that there's an HTML5 standard and a DOM
that hoards data, should tell you the game isn't on the
level, and there's really "no escape". We're arguing over
the brightness of the paint, and how soft the seats feel.

Paul