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

[newmikey]

Sounds a lot like like the so-called distro we had here long time ago, ultumix. Turned out it too was somwehat of a scam. Just an individual taking other people's work without giving credit and passing it off as their own.

I'm fine with branch-offs, forks and even re-branded packages as long as their etymology is kept and they are presented as-is. A lot of work goes into a fork so that eventually it gets to stand on its own.

I'm naturally suspicious of re-brands with minor tweaks - they tend to end up badly and, for as long as they are alive, taint the original by association. I have no need for such packages and wouldn't install even if they were available in-repo. Apart from that, Tex may not be the only decisionmaker around here nowadays but when he speaks, I listen. I've learned to trust his judgement. He's been proven right so many times in the past, it'd be folly not to!

[ElCuervo]

Sounds a lot like like the so-called distro we had here long time ago, ultumix. Turned out it too was somwehat of a scam. Just an individual taking other people's work without giving credit and passing it off as their own.

I'm fine with branch-offs, forks and even re-branded packages as long as their etymology is kept and they are presented as-is. A lot of work goes into a fork so that eventually it gets to stand on its own.

I'm naturally suspicious of re-brands with minor tweaks - they tend to end up badly and, for as long as they are alive, taint the original by association. I have no need for such packages and wouldn't install even if they were available in-repo. Apart from that, Tex may not be the only decisionmaker around here nowadays but when he speaks, I listen. I've learned to trust his judgement. He's been proven right so many times in the past, it'd be folly not to!

+1... and you're right, that ultumix dude was another example of the same thing. I thought it was remarkable that he tried so hard to defend his actions that he had blinders on... even when anyone pointed out an error in his logic, he still couldn't see it. Probably the Iron guys feel like they've done nothing wrong as well.

[insanitybit]

Hey all. I was getting some hits on my blog from here so I thought I'd just throw my hat into the conversation.

I wrote that Iron is a scam because I feel that he is pushing his product, and profiting from it, under false pretenses.

If you're considering packaging the browser I would suggest otherwise - while it should function fine I think that:
1) Packaging it gives credit to a developer whose product thrives off of unjustified fear.

2) It may confuse users - they'll see it in the repository and believe it legitimately solves problems.

3) Iron is released much more slowly than Chrome/Chromium meaning that it will be behind on patches. Depending on the release cycle the Iron dev chooses this can leave users with critical vulnerabilities that would otherwise be addressed.

[Old-Polack]

Hey all. I was getting some hits on my blog from here so I thought I'd just throw my hat into the conversation.

I wrote that Iron is a scam because I feel that he is pushing his product, and profiting from it, under false pretenses.

If you're considering packaging the browser I would suggest otherwise - while it should function fine I think that:
1) Packaging it gives credit to a developer whose product thrives off of unjustified fear.

2) It may confuse users - they'll see it in the repository and believe it legitimately solves problems.

3) Iron is released much more slowly than Chrome/Chromium meaning that it will be behind on patches. Depending on the release cycle the Iron dev chooses this can leave users with critical vulnerabilities that would otherwise be addressed.

I quite agree, on all points. To include it in our repo in effect legitimizes an unworthy application.

[joechimp]

So how can we make Chrome/Chromium totally private as mentioned. As longtom asked, where do we go? Can anything that has Google's fingers in it be made to be private? Just askin. THank you.

[insanitybit]

So how can we make Chrome/Chromium totally private as mentioned. As longtom asked, where do we go. Can anything that has Google's fingers in it be made to be private? Just askin. THank you.

I think this comes down to two things.

1) Can you configure Chrome the to do exactly what Iron does - yes. Simply go to your settings -> advanced settings -> Privacy and uncheck any boxes that you feel pose a threat.

2) If you can't trust Google you simply can't trust Google. That's all there is to it - I wouldn't suggest you trust the Iron Browser dev either.

Perhaps consider Comodo Dragon, which is much more of a legitimate fork of Chromium.

[joechimp]

Thank you insanitybit  and welcome to the forum by the way.

Do you trust Google? Hard for me to do, yes.

Comodo Dragon , now that is a new one to me. I am aware of their firewall which is a good one. I will have to look into it. Don't think that would be in our repositories though.
Thanks again

[Just17]

Is Comodo Dragon not a Win browser, or have they released a Linux version?

[joechimp]

Is Comodo Dragon not a Win browser, or have they released a Linux version?

Just looked it up. Win only.

[CaptainSarcastic]

This might be redundant, but I thought that I should point out that Chromium is not Chrome:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)#Differences_from_Google_Chrome

[ka9yhd]

at least you could easily configure Chromium to be even safer.

Ok how do I make Chromium safer?  Maybe some links or a how to?

I like how people are so quick to vote no, and it almost looks as if they are joining the choir......... all because our fearless leader said so?

[T6]

enough has been said to help me take a decision, no leader can make me believe something without a valid argument, and when you find multiple sources explaining a problem, is easy to take a decision

i voted no because i don't like chrome and derivate browsers and also like more opera and when it doesn't do what i need firefox is there

[Archie]

at least you could easily configure Chromium to be even safer.

Ok how do I make Chromium safer?  Maybe some links or a how to?

I like how people are so quick to vote no, and it almost looks as if they are joining the choir......... all because our fearless leader said so?

Nope, not only because Tex posted his opinion about it but because I used it before. Then I understood that it is just Google Chrome with nothing more than a few tweaks. The developer made claims that were not true.

Let me put it in another way. You own a AMG. I tell my neighbors it's my car. My neighbors believed me and started saying, "Archie owns this friggin' wicked AMG!" One of my neighbor is your friend. You tell him my claim was not true. Never mind how you feel about the whole thing but how do you think your neighbor would feel? Cheated? Made to look like an ass? How about all the others?

We are using Linux and we all have our choices. If you want Iron, you have your every right to use it. You're just not gonna get it here.

[johnmart]

My original opinion was to package it in the spirit of choice.
But I was persuaded to vote no from the argument that packaging Iron lends it a vote of legitimacy.

[Archie]

My original opinion was to package it in the spirit of choice.
But I was persuaded to vote no from the argument that packaging Iron lends it a vote of legitimacy.

Exactly. I suppose that's what I missed on all my brouhaha.