Browsers (Was: A very basic blog about D)

Nick Sabalausky SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com
Mon Jul 15 18:09:18 PDT 2013


On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:47:45 +0200
"Joakim" <joakim at airpost.net> wrote:

> On Monday, 15 July 2013 at 09:56:07 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> > I use SRWare Iron in place of Chrome (as I said, it literally is
> > Chrome), but if you have to put up with Chrome's "bug of the 
> > day" junk
> > then yea I guess that wouldn't work. Although at that point I 
> > would
> > reach for VirtualBox. If I ever have to run the real Chrome, 
> > it's
> > getting its ass sandboxed.
> I agree with much of what you say about how the web is broken, 
> though I don't understand your disdain for Chrome, but there's 
> absolutely no reason to use Iron.  I analyzed its source a couple 
> years back and it's basically a scam:
> 
> http://web.archive.org/web/20120331155237/http://chromium.hybridsource.org/the-iron-scam
> 
> You're getting delayed Chrome source with a different theme.  
> There's almost no difference, other than being exposed to 
> security bugs longer, which are patched in Chrome's constant 
> releases.

I really have had problems with Chrome (and other Google software)
forcefully installing always-resident processes before, and giving me
trouble getting rid of it. Never had such a problem with Iron. Even if
Iron is just a few better defaults and some options I don't even want
anyway removed, that certainly doesn't qualify as a "scam". Hell,
Iron's website is already perfectly clear about the settings existing
in Chrome but being forced to a specific setting in Iron:
<http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php> The
article makes it sound like SRWare is being deliberately deceptive,
which is verifiably untrue.

Plus Chrome introduces bugs almost as much as it fixes them, so less
frequent releases doesn't really bother me. And I wouldn't be using
Chrome's auto-updater anyway (and if I did, I would only do it in a VM).

Iron may not be a big change, but it's proven itself to me in
real-world usage to still be worthwhile.

And that archived article seems pretty biased. Ex: "...likely only to
evade source analysis like I'm doing..." Uhh, accusational and
speculative anyone? Especially since it's perfectly reasonable to
figure the different version numbers could have more to do with
divergent forks than actually "Iron deliberately changed the version
number to be sneaky". Perfectly likely that Iron had merged in v4.x,
then merged in various other changes, and just missed a line diff
involving the v4->v5 version number change. But no, we're supposed to
just *assume* it was intentional deception because that better supports
the initial "Iron is a scam" position.



More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce mailing list