Iron vs Chrome
Craig
Mike Echo asked me for a comparison of Iron & Chrome. What follows is
pretty much a compilation of statements from posts I've made on Iron in
the past.
Btw, Chromium is the open source browser project managed by Google.
Chrome is Chromium but with non-free bits thrown in (like Flash). Iron
is a very similar product, derived from the same code, by the German
company called SRWare.
> What are the differences (benefits, drawbacks) of
> Iron or Chromium? Are they basically identical except for Iron's higher
> privacy level (if it is)?
SRWare publishes their comparison list, which doesn't seem to be
maintained, here:
<http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php>
A fuller description of why a percentage of people object to Chrome can
be found at wikipedia:
<https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Google_Chrome#Criticism>
Long and short: most of the comparative advantages of Iron pretty much
disappear once the user configures the browser. By the way, back in May
of this year, I invited SRWare representatives to talk about some of the
information below. I received no reply.
I don't use SRWare Iron anymore. Three reasons:
1) releases lag considerably behind (especially for Linux & OSX)
2) there don't appear to be any privacy-related advantages
3) there appears to be misrepresentation or misunderstanding @ SRWare
Regarding the last two points: First, from Evan Martin, a Chrome developer:
http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2009/12/iron.html
> Half of the bullet points on the Iron "feature" page are options that
> can be turned off in a clearly-marked "Privacy" section of the Chrome
> options, and the other half are misunderstandings
Second from "Sprewell" who discusses diffs he had done on a few versions
of both browsers:
http://chromium.hybridsource.org/the-iron-scam
> Summary: I downloaded the recently released source code for the
> "privacy-oriented" Iron 4 browser and compared it to the open source
> Chromium browser from which it was derived. I found that all Iron
> does is hard-code three privacy options, that were already
> user-configurable, and add one or two minor features unrelated to
> privacy, like increasing the number of thumbnails on the New Tab
> page.
Third, from an IRC chat with the author of Iron:
http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2009/12/iron.html
> <mgreenblatt> Iron.. why not propose a patch
> <Iron> because a fork will bring a lot of publicity to my
> person and my homepage
> <Iron> that means: a lot of money too
For me, the decision to drop SRWare Iron had less to do with the browser
itself and more with the company. It plays on people's concerns about
privacy w/o being willing (or able) to back it up.
When I first posted on this, other regulars here including occam and
Spamblk provided some valid counter arguments. Spamblk's response, in
particular, is pretty comprehensive and deserves a read. The entire
thread is here:
> From: Howard Schwartz <howard...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Best Chrome Lookalike?
> Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 20:20:00 +0000 (UTC)
> Message-ID: <Xns9EF38839...@178.63.61.145>
hth,
--
-Craig
http://pricelesswarehome.org/
Mike Echo
>> Mike Echo asked me for a comparison of Iron& Chrome. What follows is
>> pretty much a compilation of statements from posts I've made on Iron in
>> the past.
[...] Wow, Craig, I thought you'd just run a few dot points (from
memory) past. You have outdone yourself here, laddie. :-) Thanks.
> Today I switched to Palemoon because I lost trust in Mozilla.
> (but that is a different discussion.)
Fred, I use PaleMoon too. I am always looking for something lean and
mean for my netbook, which is why I am trying Chromium and Iron. Also, I
only have a few addons and the most important (Greasemonkey, RSS
bookmarks and adblock) are covered in Chromium/Iron.
> As I am very suspicious at Google and the invasion of privacy associated
> with Google, for now I prefer Iron.
Me too. You suspicious, untrusting thing, you. ;-)
R.
Craig
> On 20/08/11 07:49, FredW wrote:
>
> [...] Wow, Craig, I thought you'd just run a few dot points (from
> memory) past. You have outdone yourself here, laddie. :-) Thanks.
My pleasure
--
-Craig
http://pricelesswarehome.org/
Spamblk
news:j2m00h$814$1...@dont-email.me:
> Howdy;
>
> Mike Echo asked me for a comparison of Iron & Chrome. What follows is
> pretty much a compilation of statements from posts I've made on Iron
> in the past.
>
> Btw, Chromium is the open source browser project managed by Google.
> Chrome is Chromium but with non-free bits thrown in (like Flash).
> Iron is a very similar product, derived from the same code, by the
> German company called SRWare.
>
>> What are the differences (benefits, drawbacks) of
>> Iron or Chromium? Are they basically identical except for Iron's
>> higher privacy level (if it is)?
>
> SRWare publishes their comparison list, which doesn't seem to be
> maintained, here:
> <http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php>
(Sigh)
I dont use either Chrome/Chromium/Iron mainy because FFX and addons meet my
requirements at present.
However perhaps it ought to be noted that English is not SRWare's first
language. Moreover Iron is under active development, at least that is the
impression I gathered from this :
http://www.srware.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2552
Unless or until Chrome makes certain alleged features (such as installing
an updater service /sending all keystrokes in the Omnibox to Google - you
get the picture etc) opt-in rather than opt-out then Iron IMO is more
privacy oriented that Chrome.
<SNIP...>
> Long and short: most of the comparative advantages of Iron pretty much
> disappear once the user configures the browser.
Long and short: You have to opt-out. Moreover someone else posted a while
back that the google-updater.exe service has to be disabled by a registry
hack? Well if that's true then more power to Iron's arguments.
> By the way, back in
> May of this year, I invited SRWare representatives to talk about some
> of the information below. I received no reply.
Sorry Craig, but you do not say if your invitation was in German. Now if I
wrote to Chrome's developers in German suggesting, for example, that the
default search engine for the Omnibox be left blank I wouldn't expect
anything substantial by way of reply.
> I don't use SRWare Iron anymore. Three reasons:
>
> 1) releases lag considerably behind (especially for Linux & OSX)
> 2) there don't appear to be any privacy-related advantages
> 3) there appears to be misrepresentation or misunderstanding @ SRWare
See above.
> Regarding the last two points: First, from Evan Martin, a Chrome
> developer:
>
> http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2009/12/iron.html
> > Half of the bullet points on the Iron "feature" page are options
> > that can be turned off in a clearly-marked "Privacy" section of the
> > Chrome options, and the other half are misunderstandings
See above.
> Second from "Sprewell" who discusses diffs he had done on a few
> versions of both browsers:
>
> http://chromium.hybridsource.org/the-iron-scam
> > Summary: I downloaded the recently released source code for the
> > "privacy-oriented" Iron 4 browser and compared it to the open source
> > Chromium browser from which it was derived. I found that all Iron
> > does is hard-code three privacy options, that were already
> > user-configurable, and add one or two minor features unrelated to
> > privacy, like increasing the number of thumbnails on the New Tab
> > page.
It seems it is being claimed that there are also changes to the internal
engine, see
http://www.srware.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=1905
> Third, from an IRC chat with the author of Iron:
With the ALLEGED author of Iron.
>
> http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2009/12/iron.html
> > <mgreenblatt> Iron.. why not propose a patch
> > <Iron> because a fork will bring a lot of publicity to my
> > person and my homepage
> > <Iron> that means: a lot of money too
From http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2009/12/iron.html
: (Now, it's possible (but highly unlikely) this isn't the eventual
: author of Iron, but in some sense that's irrelevant to the two
: meta-points:
??? I don't think somehow you could convict a dog for barking on that kind
of evidence. In any event even if SRWare want to make some money well that
is no different to the aims of adsense or doubleclick etc.
> For me, the decision to drop SRWare Iron had less to do with the
> browser itself and more with the company. It plays on people's
> concerns about privacy w/o being willing (or able) to back it up.
If Chrome installs an updater service, by default, that has to be disabled
by deleting an exe file or amending startup entries in the registry, then
Iron's claims already are demonstrated to hold water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRWare_Iron
> When I first posted on this, other regulars here including occam and
> Spamblk provided some valid counter arguments. Spamblk's response, in
> particular, is pretty comprehensive and deserves a read. The entire
> thread is here:
No need to read that thread, already covered here :)
Nicetameetya
[Default] On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 07:59:55 +0000 (UTC), Spamblk
<Zap...@SpamMeNot.invalid> told us in complete confidence:
>Unless or until Chrome makes certain alleged features (such as installing
>an updater service /sending all keystrokes in the Omnibox to Google - you
>get the picture etc) opt-in rather than opt-out then Iron IMO is more
>privacy oriented that Chrome.
My primary problem with Chrome is that it makes you jump through
several hoops before you can clear the cache. What a stupid interface.
Craig
> As I am very suspicious at Google and the invasion of privacy associated
> with Google, for now I prefer Iron.
Understood. But, how can you trust SRWare? That's the odd thing, to
me, about all of this. There's an awful lot of faith being put into the
people behind SRWare.
> P.S. I appreciate that you opened a new thread for this subject.
My pleasure. I need to keep things simple for my own benefit %-)
--
-Craig
http://pricelesswarehome.org/
Stephen Wolstenholme
Why do you want to clear the cache?
Steve
--
Neural network applications, help and support.
Neural Network Software. www.npsl1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. www.justnn.com
Nicetameetya
[Default] On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 10:31:52 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
<st...@npsl1.com> told us in complete confidence:
>On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 21:01:52 +1200, Nicetameetya
><gd...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>[Default] On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 07:59:55 +0000 (UTC), Spamblk
>><Zap...@SpamMeNot.invalid> told us in complete confidence:
>>
>>>Unless or until Chrome makes certain alleged features (such as installing
>>>an updater service /sending all keystrokes in the Omnibox to Google - you
>>>get the picture etc) opt-in rather than opt-out then Iron IMO is more
>>>privacy oriented that Chrome.
>>
>>My primary problem with Chrome is that it makes you jump through
>>several hoops before you can clear the cache. What a stupid interface.
>
>Why do you want to clear the cache?
Perhaps you should ask what a browser cache is. Because, if you knew,
you wouldn't ask.
Stephen Wolstenholme
<gd...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>[Default] On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 10:31:52 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
><st...@npsl1.com> told us in complete confidence:
>
>>On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 21:01:52 +1200, Nicetameetya
>><gd...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>[Default] On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 07:59:55 +0000 (UTC), Spamblk
>>><Zap...@SpamMeNot.invalid> told us in complete confidence:
>>>
>>>>Unless or until Chrome makes certain alleged features (such as installing
>>>>an updater service /sending all keystrokes in the Omnibox to Google - you
>>>>get the picture etc) opt-in rather than opt-out then Iron IMO is more
>>>>privacy oriented that Chrome.
>>>
>>>My primary problem with Chrome is that it makes you jump through
>>>several hoops before you can clear the cache. What a stupid interface.
>>
>>Why do you want to clear the cache?
>
>Perhaps you should ask what a browser cache is. Because, if you knew,
>you wouldn't ask.
>
I know what a cache is and I also know that in any decent design there
is no need to clear it manually. I don't know how much space Chrome
uses for a cache but with todays memory and disc sizes I'm sure it
doesn't matter much. The net performance is improved by using a cache.
Pooh the Cat
>Long and short: You have to opt-out. Moreover someone else posted a while
>back that the google-updater.exe service has to be disabled by a registry
>hack? Well if that's true then more power to Iron's arguments.
On Vista and Win 7, I just removed the scheduled tasks, and disabled
the services.
>> Third, from an IRC chat with the author of Iron:
>
>With the ALLEGED author of Iron.
>
>>
>> http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2009/12/iron.html
>> > <mgreenblatt> Iron.. why not propose a patch
>> > <Iron> because a fork will bring a lot of publicity to my
>> > person and my homepage
>> > <Iron> that means: a lot of money too
>
>From http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2009/12/iron.html
>
>: (Now, it's possible (but highly unlikely) this isn't the eventual
>: author of Iron, but in some sense that's irrelevant to the two
>: meta-points:
>
>??? I don't think somehow you could convict a dog for barking on that kind
>of evidence.
The 'evidence' is a mish mash of hearsay.
>In any event even if SRWare want to make some money well that
>is no different to the aims of adsense or doubleclick etc.
Chromium, and SRWare Iron are released under a BSD licence. I haven't
checked the fine print but usually that means you can do anything you
want with the code including producing a proprietary fork. Which it
doesn't look like SRWare have done.
The authors of Chromium wanted that. Making money is not a crime,
although it seems subject to a great deal of envy here. In fact making
money out of F/OSS providing you stick to the licence is usually
encouraged.
--
Pooh the cat - Representative on ACF of a vox populi now vacant
Bear Bottoms
--
Bear
http://bearware.info
Nicetameetya
[Default] On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 11:05:40 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
<st...@npsl1.com> told us in complete confidence:
>On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 21:51:35 +1200, Nicetameetya
><gd...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>[Default] On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 10:31:52 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme
>><st...@npsl1.com> told us in complete confidence:
>>
>>>On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 21:01:52 +1200, Nicetameetya
>>><gd...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>[Default] On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 07:59:55 +0000 (UTC), Spamblk
>>>><Zap...@SpamMeNot.invalid> told us in complete confidence:
>>>>
>>>>>Unless or until Chrome makes certain alleged features (such as installing
>>>>>an updater service /sending all keystrokes in the Omnibox to Google - you
>>>>>get the picture etc) opt-in rather than opt-out then Iron IMO is more
>>>>>privacy oriented that Chrome.
>>>>
>>>>My primary problem with Chrome is that it makes you jump through
>>>>several hoops before you can clear the cache. What a stupid interface.
>>>
>>>Why do you want to clear the cache?
>>
>>Perhaps you should ask what a browser cache is. Because, if you knew,
>>you wouldn't ask.
>>
>
>I know what a cache is and I also know that in any decent design there
>is no need to clear it manually. I don't know how much space Chrome
>uses for a cache but with todays memory and disc sizes I'm sure it
>doesn't matter much. The net performance is improved by using a cache.
Let me put it this way.
You may not want or need to, but I like to be able to manually clear
my browser cache after a session of surfing the net and researching
what may turn out to be a variety of image-heavy sites.
Since there are a lot of the sites I visit just long enough to
determine their value to me I do NOT want to retain their data in my
browser cache when I have no intention of visiting them again.. And if
I do, my "net performance" is not a problem to me.
It is not unusual for a research session to result in a several
hundred megabytes of superfluous data in my browser cache and that
slows down my browser - not my computer.
Firefox allows me to manually clear my cache easily. Chrome does not -
which is why I don't like Chrome. Simple as that.
Bear Bottoms
> Making money is not a crime,
> although it seems subject to a great deal of envy here.
Nail - head
--
Bear
http://bearware.info
UnsteadyKen
Nicetameetya wrote...
> My primary problem with Chrome is that it makes you jump through
> several hoops before you can clear the cache. What a stupid interface.
>
Ctrl+Shift+Del
Works in IE, Chrome and Pale Moon.
--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/
Craig
>
> Nicetameetya wrote...
>
>> My primary problem with Chrome is that it makes you jump through
>> several hoops before you can clear the cache. What a stupid interface.
>>
> Ctrl+Shift+Del
>
> Works in IE, Chrome and Pale Moon.
Just so! Thanks Ken.
--
-Craig
http://pricelesswarehome.org/
Spamblk
news:1ovu4710nli3a196g...@4ax.com:
> The authors of Chromium wanted that. Making money is not a crime,
> although it seems subject to a great deal of envy here. In fact making
> money out of F/OSS providing you stick to the licence is usually
> encouraged.
I would not begrudge either SRWare (or Google for that matter) hoping to
attract good publicity by helping develop a good freeware browser.
Spamblk
news:9b9gfp...@mid.individual.net:
> Since there are a lot of the sites I visit just long enough to
> determine their value to me I do NOT want to retain their data in my
> browser cache when I have no intention of visiting them again.. And if
> I do, my "net performance" is not a problem to me.
And if you set a fixed limit to the cache size (as can be done in FFX) then
you potentially lose useful caching to a heavy browsing session. And there
can be a performance hit for a large cache as the cache manager has to
manage all those entries.
Nicetameetya
[Default] On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:48:02 +0000 (UTC), Spamblk
<Zap...@SpamMeNot.invalid> told us in complete confidence:
>Nicetameetya <gd...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
Which is why I want to be able to manually clear my browser cache when
it suits me.
With my Firefox "Clear Cache" add-on, I can manually clear the cache
as I go along. And even though I long ago learned how to maximise a
Google search, the areas of my research still return more duds than
gems. So it's better for my "net performance" to clear the cache and
reload the those pages or sites that are of value to me. I can also
save those pages and view off-line.
However, I'm going to try using the keyboard shortcut suggested by
UnsteadyKen. But since that's not the only issue I have with Chrome
compared to FF, I doubt that I'll be dumping FF soon. Just staying
with v4.0.1
Nicetameetya
[Default] On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 15:25:21 +0100, UnsteadyKen
<unste...@gmail.com> told us in complete confidence:
>
> Nicetameetya wrote...
>
>> My primary problem with Chrome is that it makes you jump through
>> several hoops before you can clear the cache. What a stupid interface.
>>
>Ctrl+Shift+Del
>
>Works in IE, Chrome and Pale Moon.
Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately, all that keyboard shortcut
does is open a "Clear Browsing Data" window. Not only does that
require you to take another step by clicking the "Clear browsing date"
button, it also opens the "Under The Hood" page in a new tab.
OTOH the Clear Cache button on my Firefox menubar simply requires one
click to clear the cache. One click vs a keyboard shortcut, plus a
click and an unwanted tab. It's all those extra steps in the Chrome
interface that makes it far less attractive - plus the idiocy of not
being able to have a Google toolbar on Google Chrome. Dumb.
Franklin
I installed Iron to avoid Chrome's privacy issues but found Iron
wasn't always kept up to date. On reflection, Iron doesn't have
sufficient advantages to justify itself on my system.