Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Chrome(ium) Solaris porting team
1,011 views
Skip to first unread message
Philip Brown
Oct 27, 2014, 2:53:35 PM10/27/14
to
Anyone besides me, have experience porting open source code to Solaris, and would like to join the effort to port Chrome browser (aka "chromium") to Solaris?
I've already done the hard part: porting the build system. Now I just need more volunteers to go through the code and help me make patches.
I have a public repository of my build system patches, at
https://github.com/bolthole/solaris-chromium-patches
That will also be where browser patches will live
I also have binaries for "ninja" and "gn", the chromium build tools, there.
I've already done the hard part: porting the build system. Now I just need more volunteers to go through the code and help me make patches.
I have a public repository of my build system patches, at
https://github.com/bolthole/solaris-chromium-patches
That will also be where browser patches will live
I also have binaries for "ninja" and "gn", the chromium build tools, there.
High Anxiety
Oct 28, 2014, 4:26:33 AM10/28/14
to
On 2014-10-27, Philip Brown <ph...@bolthole.com> wrote:
> Anyone besides me, have experience porting open source code to Solaris, and would like to join the effort to port Chrome browser (aka "chromium") to Solaris?
Are you kidding me? Why would anybody want to spread google's spyware
> Anyone besides me, have experience porting open source code to Solaris, and would like to join the effort to port Chrome browser (aka "chromium") to Solaris?
further than Android? Who's paying you?
>
> I've already done the hard part: porting the build system. Now I just need more volunteers to go through the code and help me make patches.
>
> I have a public repository of my build system patches, at
>
> https://github.com/bolthole/solaris-chromium-patches
>
> That will also be where browser patches will live
>
> I also have binaries for "ninja" and "gn", the chromium build tools, there.
Run wireshark on Chromium before you waste too much more time porting it and
ask yourself if google didn't out-Microsoft Microsoft. Some people have said
it even times your keystrokes...
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Oct 28, 2014, 9:28:31 AM10/28/14
to
In article <m2njvk$eqo$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
"Some people have said"
Surely if it is being ported, then the source code is available? That seems
like a pretty odd criticism in that case.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Surely if it is being ported, then the source code is available? That seems
like a pretty odd criticism in that case.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
High Anxiety
Oct 28, 2014, 12:22:01 PM10/28/14
to
also possible the person writing the article was good at network monitoring
stuff but not a developer. A modern browser is usually pretty large. Not
everyone is capable of auditing millions of lines of code by themselves.
Google is an established spyware ecosystem. That's all public information
now. They're colluding with the U.S. government. Everything they do is
automatically suspect. Android has even more vulnerabilities than Windows.
If you think all that is unintentional then you have to say google is
extremely bad at designing and writing software and their products
shouldn't be trusted anyway. If none of that bothers you then carry on.
Philip Brown
Oct 28, 2014, 2:32:39 PM10/28/14
to
On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 1:26:33 AM UTC-7, High Anxiety wrote:
>
>
> Run wireshark on Chromium before you waste too much more time porting it and
> ask yourself if google didn't out-Microsoft Microsoft. Some people have said
> it even times your keystrokes...
Of course it does. Probably all modern browsers with "google now" type functionality have to do that. In order to figure out when to start showing you possible matches when you're halfway through typing your full search phrase, I'd imagine they have to know roughly how fast you type, and how often to try giving you updates on partial matches for search results.
>
>
> Run wireshark on Chromium before you waste too much more time porting it and
> ask yourself if google didn't out-Microsoft Microsoft. Some people have said
> it even times your keystrokes...
wil...@wilbur.25thandclement.com
Oct 29, 2014, 3:15:07 AM10/29/14
to
High Anxiety <higha...@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 2014-10-28, Ted Nolan <tednolan> <t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote:
>> In article <m2njvk$eqo$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
>> High Anxiety <higha...@oracle.com> wrote:
<snip>
> On 2014-10-28, Ted Nolan <tednolan> <t...@loft.tnolan.com> wrote:
>> In article <m2njvk$eqo$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
>> High Anxiety <higha...@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>Run wireshark on Chromium before you waste too much more time porting it
>>>and ask yourself if google didn't out-Microsoft Microsoft. Some people
>>>have said it even times your keystrokes...
>>>
>>
>> "Some people have said"
>>
>> Surely if it is being ported, then the source code is available? That
>> seems like a pretty odd criticism in that case.
>
> It may have not been released at the time the article was written. It is
> also possible the person writing the article was good at network monitoring
> stuff but not a developer. A modern browser is usually pretty large. Not
> everyone is capable of auditing millions of lines of code by themselves.
>
> Google is an established spyware ecosystem. That's all public information
> now. They're colluding with the U.S. government. Everything they do is
> automatically suspect. Android has even more vulnerabilities than Windows.
> If you think all that is unintentional then you have to say google is
> extremely bad at designing and writing software and their products
> shouldn't be trusted anyway. If none of that bothers you then carry on.
>
All your criticisms could be true _and_ bothersome and it could still be
>>>and ask yourself if google didn't out-Microsoft Microsoft. Some people
>>>have said it even times your keystrokes...
>>>
>>
>> "Some people have said"
>>
>> Surely if it is being ported, then the source code is available? That
>> seems like a pretty odd criticism in that case.
>
> It may have not been released at the time the article was written. It is
> also possible the person writing the article was good at network monitoring
> stuff but not a developer. A modern browser is usually pretty large. Not
> everyone is capable of auditing millions of lines of code by themselves.
>
> Google is an established spyware ecosystem. That's all public information
> now. They're colluding with the U.S. government. Everything they do is
> automatically suspect. Android has even more vulnerabilities than Windows.
> If you think all that is unintentional then you have to say google is
> extremely bad at designing and writing software and their products
> shouldn't be trusted anyway. If none of that bothers you then carry on.
>
worthwhile to use Chromium:
1) There's no reason to think Internet Explorer would be safer and many
reasons to believe it's worse, especially considering that it's closed
source. Plus IE on Solaris isn't an option.
Mozilla is substantially funded by Google and is a U.S. entity with U.S.
employees. So, Firefox is similarly tainted because Mozilla's economic
motives and susceptibility to government intervention closely parallel
Google's.
For a "full web experience", you must use one of those three browsers. (This
is an important premise. Obviously you can always just use lynx, links, or
NetSurf.)
2) WebKit would be a good alternative, except that for the average person
the one thing worse than Google or the NSA spying on you are criminals
spying on you:
a) Chromium has more mature and better tested sandboxing than either WebKit
or Firefox.
b) Automatic updates ensure you more quickly receive bug fixes, spoofing
and phishing counter measures, and SSL CA updates.
High Anxiety
Oct 29, 2014, 5:02:20 AM10/29/14
to
>
> Mozilla is substantially funded by Google and is a U.S. entity with U.S.
> employees. So, Firefox is similarly tainted because Mozilla's economic
> motives and susceptibility to government intervention closely parallel
> Google's.
(Windows and MacOS). The people there are not used to auditing code. Firefox
is very popular on open source OS and there are many people looking at it. From
the number of eyes I think it will be harder to to hide something in Firefox
than in Chromium. Firefox builds are still being done by Oracle China AFAIK.
Another important difference is all google apps depend on google being
around and connectivity to google. AFAIK nothing in Firefox depends on
communication with Mozilla. When it does it will be time for links/lynx and
then off the web.
> a) Chromium has more mature and better tested sandboxing than either WebKit
> or Firefox.
a Solaris zone or LDOM with Firefox is still safer than running Chromium on
a real host.
>
> b) Automatic updates ensure you more quickly receive bug fixes, spoofing
> and phishing counter measures, and SSL CA updates.
updated automatically. Either I look at an update and do it manually or it
stays like it is. I can't think of a better vulnerability vector than auto
updates. And I can't believe people are happy with that concept. Windows has
really done more damage than just peddling bad GUIs.
Andrew Gabriel
Oct 29, 2014, 6:09:48 AM10/29/14
to
In article <m2qaem$adt$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,
javascript program loads up some part of Google's javascript APIs.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
High Anxiety <higha...@oracle.com> writes:
>
> Another important difference is all google apps depend on google being
> around and connectivity to google. AFAIK nothing in Firefox depends on
> communication with Mozilla.
Just about every website uses javascript, and just about every web based
>
> Another important difference is all google apps depend on google being
> around and connectivity to google. AFAIK nothing in Firefox depends on
> communication with Mozilla.
javascript program loads up some part of Google's javascript APIs.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
Drazen Kacar
Oct 29, 2014, 4:05:00 PM10/29/14
to
<wil...@wilbur.25thandClement.com> wrote:
> 1) There's no reason to think Internet Explorer would be safer and many
> reasons to believe it's worse, especially considering that it's closed
> source. Plus IE on Solaris isn't an option.
How do you mean it isn't? There was IE for Solaris and it worked perfectly
> 1) There's no reason to think Internet Explorer would be safer and many
> reasons to believe it's worse, especially considering that it's closed
> source. Plus IE on Solaris isn't an option.
fine[1]. Considering that Solaris is supposed to be binary compatible with
itself, that (perhaps somewhat outdated[2]) IE version should be working
still[3].
:-)
[1] At least on my workstation.
[2] Released at the time when Solaris 7 was the current release, I think.
[3] If you get around its (probably unnecessary) check for OS version.
--
.-. .-. Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely
(_ \ / _) ceremonial.
|
| da...@fly.srk.fer.hr
Chris Ridd
Oct 30, 2014, 8:40:28 AM10/30/14
to
On 2014-10-29 20:04:55 +0000, Drazen Kacar said:
> <wil...@wilbur.25thandClement.com> wrote:
>
>> 1) There's no reason to think Internet Explorer would be safer and many
>> reasons to believe it's worse, especially considering that it's closed
>> source. Plus IE on Solaris isn't an option.
>
> How do you mean it isn't? There was IE for Solaris and it worked perfectly
> fine[1]. Considering that Solaris is supposed to be binary compatible with
> itself, that (perhaps somewhat outdated[2]) IE version should be working
> still[3].
>
> :-)
>
> [1] At least on my workstation.
>
> [2] Released at the time when Solaris 7 was the current release, I think.
Yes, I used it too, on my 2.5.1 workstation. I felt dirty afterwards, mind!
> <wil...@wilbur.25thandClement.com> wrote:
>
>> 1) There's no reason to think Internet Explorer would be safer and many
>> reasons to believe it's worse, especially considering that it's closed
>> source. Plus IE on Solaris isn't an option.
>
> How do you mean it isn't? There was IE for Solaris and it worked perfectly
> fine[1]. Considering that Solaris is supposed to be binary compatible with
> itself, that (perhaps somewhat outdated[2]) IE version should be working
> still[3].
>
> :-)
>
> [1] At least on my workstation.
>
> [2] Released at the time when Solaris 7 was the current release, I think.
--
Chris
Drazen Kacar
Oct 30, 2014, 11:14:55 AM10/30/14
to
Chris Ridd wrote:
> On 2014-10-29 20:04:55 +0000, Drazen Kacar said:
> > How do you mean it isn't? There was IE for Solaris and it worked perfectly
> > fine[1].
> On 2014-10-29 20:04:55 +0000, Drazen Kacar said:
> > How do you mean it isn't? There was IE for Solaris and it worked perfectly
> > fine[1].
> Yes, I used it too, on my 2.5.1 workstation. I felt dirty afterwards, mind!
Yeah, well, me too, now that you've mentioned it. :-)
0 new messages