Should Iron-Browser continue to be packaged and updated for PCLinuxOS?

[joechimp]

I like it ! I use it ! I voted YES !

If it is a scam, it got me. Wouldn't be the first time.

[ka9yhd]

I just started using Iron as Firefox started, after the last several updates, running very slow.  Scrolling through bookmarks and scrolling down on web pages is very slow.

So I voted yes.

[Waldo22]

I voted yes, simply because I see no harm to the users of this distro.  I might suggest a disclaimer in the description of the package so that users could make an informed decision.  I don't smoke, but I don't think it's my right to tell others that they can't.

[kjpetrie]

I'm not voting. I have no interest in this package. However, I'd like to know whether it's being called a scam because it's just a copy of another browser, or because the way it makes money is fraudulent in some way.

That's important because the freedom of FOSS is at stake. If people are going to imply it's unethical to fork software or just distribute it under a different name, or to adapt it a little and make money out of it, they need to understand they're buying into the proprietary Intellectual Property mindset. The whole point of FOSS is that we are free to adapt it, redistribute it, use it in any way we can and even make money out of it. The only thing we can't do is curtail others' freedom to do the same. That's what it's all about, so to call someone a scammer when they do that is a serious slur not just against them, but against the whole FOSS philosophy.

On the other hand, if the browser were modified to send requests to simulate ad clicks on sites the user isn't seeing, in order to generate pay-per-click revenue for the author, that could justly be called a scam.

[Bald Brick]

I'm not voting. I have no interest in this package. However, I'd like to know whether it's being called a scam because it's just a copy of another browser, or because the way it makes money is fraudulent in some way.

That's important because the freedom of FOSS is at stake. If people are going to imply it's unethical to fork software or just distribute it under a different name, or to adapt it a little and make money out of it, they need to understand they're buying into the proprietary Intellectual Property mindset. The whole point of FOSS is that we are free to adapt it, redistribute it, use it in any way we can and even make money out of it. The only thing we can't do is curtail others' freedom to do the same. That's what it's all about, so to call someone a scammer when they do that is a serious slur not just against them, but against the whole FOSS philosophy.

On the other hand, if the browser were modified to send requests to simulate ad clicks on sites the user isn't seeing, in order to generate pay-per-click revenue for the author, that could justly be called a scam.

Texstar posted this link in late November last year: http://chromium.hybridsource.org/the-iron-scam. Unfortunately you won't any longer find a word about Iron on the target page.

But if I remember correctly many people called Iron a scam, not because it was a fork of Chromium that didn't give credit to the original authors, but simply because they felt it was distributed under false pretenses: we were told that it guarded our privacy better than Chrome or Chromium and it didn't. Or at least you could easily configure Chromium to be even safer.

And once you were hooked and installed Iron it would take you to a info page with popup ads when you tried to reach the Chrome Webstore.  As a scam this wouldn't qualify for the top-ten list, but the idea is still more clever than honest.

If it's true. I don't know that it is.

[ElCuervo]

I'm not voting. I have no interest in this package. However, I'd like to know whether it's being called a scam because it's just a copy of another browser, or because the way it makes money is fraudulent in some way.

That's important because the freedom of FOSS is at stake. If people are going to imply it's unethical to fork software or just distribute it under a different name, or to adapt it a little and make money out of it, they need to understand they're buying into the proprietary Intellectual Property mindset. The whole point of FOSS is that we are free to adapt it, redistribute it, use it in any way we can and even make money out of it. The only thing we can't do is curtail others' freedom to do the same. That's what it's all about, so to call someone a scammer when they do that is a serious slur not just against them, but against the whole FOSS philosophy.

On the other hand, if the browser were modified to send requests to simulate ad clicks on sites the user isn't seeing, in order to generate pay-per-click revenue for the author, that could justly be called a scam.

Texstar posted this link in late November last year: http://chromium.hybridsource.org/the-iron-scam. Unfortunately you won't any longer find a word about Iron on the target page.

But if I remember correctly many people called Iron a scam, not because it was a fork of Chromium that didn't give credit to the original authors, but simply because they felt it was distributed under false pretenses: we were told that it guarded our privacy better than Chrome or Chromium and it didn't. Or at least you could easily configure Chromium to be even safer.

And once you were hooked and installed Iron it would take you to a info page with popup ads when you tried to reach the Chrome Webstore.  As a scam this wouldn't qualify for the top-ten list, but the idea is still more clever than honest.

If it's true. I don't know that it is.

A search for iron browser scam will turn up plenty more. Here is one with some actual facts and a couple of sources: http://insanitybit.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/srware-iron-browser-a-real-private-alternative-to-chrome-21/

[joechimp]

It appears a lot of evidence is coming up that supports Iron to be a scam on the public. I was unaware of all this.
Iron has worked fine for me. I was unaware as well that you could configure Chrome/Chromium to be totally private.

The one thing in the article recommended by ElCuervo that I question as credible it that the writer claims that Google/Chrome/Chromium has a Privacy team and that they are very responsible. 

Google  - Responsible - Privacy.........That's where he lost me.

Still I believe that after reading multiple things that Iron may not be representing itself as what it really may be. I will have to dig further.

Thanks for bringing this all to my attention.

[Just17]

A search for iron browser scam will turn up plenty more. Here is one with some actual facts and a couple of sources: http://insanitybit.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/srware-iron-browser-a-real-private-alternative-to-chrome-21/

This covers what is behind this whole situation.

BTW ....  is it possible when packaging Chromium-browser for PCLOS, that those same settings (that Iron has) could be made default? Would some of them interfere with what some users expect as 'normal' functions?

[aguila]

Voted no as I don't use it. If I was to drop Firefox, I guess I'ld go for Chromium. Or Opera. Or Rekonq. Midori. Even Konquerer.

Never looked at Iron.

[CaptainSarcastic]

As an analogy, what if someone repackaged Firefox, changed the name and the skin, set a couple of pre-existing privacy options and then hid them, and redirected the extensions link to his own website instead of mozilla.org in order to generate revenue for himself?

That's basically what Iron is, except using Chromium instead of Firefox.

[Bald Brick]

As an analogy, what if someone repackaged Firefox, changed the name and the skin, set a couple of pre-existing privacy options and then hid them, and redirected the extensions link to his own website instead of mozilla.org in order to generate revenue for himself?

That's basically what Iron is, except using Chromium instead of Firefox.

Actually I see nothing wrong in that. But if your somebody tries to hide the fact the privacy options also exist -- as options -- in Firefox and insists that 'his' browser is more secure than Firefox because of these very options, then it would start to look like a scam. Distributing a tweaked version of Firefox, even under another name, is OK; lying about it is not.

[ElCuervo]

BTW ....  is it possible when packaging Chromium-browser for PCLOS, that those same settings (that Iron has) could be made default? Would some of them interfere with what some users expect as 'normal' functions?

Yes. I normally like to be tracked by Google.

[kjpetrie]

As an analogy, what if someone repackaged Firefox, changed the name and the skin, set a couple of pre-existing privacy options and then hid them, and redirected the extensions link to his own website instead of mozilla.org in order to generate revenue for himself?

That's basically what Iron is, except using Chromium instead of Firefox.

Actually I see nothing wrong in that. But if your somebody tries to hide the fact the privacy options also exist -- as options -- in Firefox and insists that 'his' browser is more secure than Firefox because of these very options, then it would start to look like a scam. Distributing a tweaked version of Firefox, even under another name, is OK; lying about it is not.

That's what I was trying to get at. Rejigging, renaming, and redistributing is fine. Deception is not.

[Just17]

BTW ....  is it possible when packaging Chromium-browser for PCLOS, that those same settings (that Iron has) could be made default? Would some of them interfere with what some users expect as 'normal' functions?

Yes. I normally like to be tracked by Google.

   one never knows ..... 

[longtom]

I have used Iron before and found it not running very well on my setup.  I also tested Chromium but do not use it much because of Google politics.  Now Iron might be a scam - so that would rule it out for me.

However, if Chromium can be made to be a more private browser than Iron I might want to have another look at it.  Could somebody point me into the correct direction for this please.

Thank you for bringing this up and thanks for all the links, especially the first ones from the testing thread.