Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME's Epiphany Experiences A Facelift

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • phoronix
    started a topic GNOME's Epiphany Experiences A Facelift

    GNOME's Epiphany Experiences A Facelift

    Phoronix: GNOME's Epiphany Experiences A Facelift

    Epiphany, the web-browser for the GNOME desktop, is receiving a rather significant facelift as it becomes more important to the GNOME3 desktop...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTAyMzQ

  • Teho
    replied
    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    Malfeatures tend to be herd animals. Where there's hard evidence of one, you're likely to find 10 others.
    That's the beaty of open source. We know that Chromium doesn't send any information if you disable the only feature that requires it to function.

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    The possibility for snooping is side product of "predictive searching" which itself is undoubtably a feature. You mistakenly expect your own values to be unversal but even if we consider having such feature on by default to be "unacceptable" then so what? How does it make the browser any worse when it's turned off?
    Malfeatures tend to be herd animals. Where there's hard evidence of one, you're likely to find 10 others.

    Should we let such irrelevant philosophical dissonance affect our choise of a browser?
    You're welcome to use Chrome. I'm welcome not to, and to recommend against it.

    Originally posted by Teho View Post
    And maybe most importantly what does this have to do with the topic?
    It was a response to this:

    You understand that Chromium is open source and it doesn't send any information to anyone as long as you don't use Google as search engine which then again does the same on any browser? Well not that matters as it has nothing to do with Webkit.
    My highlight. I asked you to name one such browser other than Chrom*. Perhaps I misunderstood, and you meant searches intended for google?

    I agree the Chrome track is offtopic for Epiphany. Then again, so what?

    Leave a comment:


  • puntarenas
    replied
    Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
    Well, then you'll be delighted to read this:
    http://blogs.igalia.com/mario/2011/1...ys-ad-blocker/
    Indeed I am, thank you!

    Seems now with Epiphany 3.4 there will only be one show-stopper left that keeps me away. I wonder why there isn't even a third party solution that aims for browser independent bookmark and password sync, not to mention that an open standardization would be even better and allow us to choose a cloud-service and web-storage provider ourselves.

    Leave a comment:


  • Awesomeness
    replied
    Originally posted by Maxim Levitsky View Post
    Thanks the dear God that nether Chrome nor Firefox are owned by Gnome.
    Not? Chrome/Chromium doesn't even have a cookie manager setting that let's it ask the user on every website how to treat cookies for that site.
    OTOH Firefox does not have an option to treat all cookies as session cookies and whitelist only specific domains for permanent storage.

    Both seem like GNOME's ?We don't need option XY? attitude to me.

    The only browser with a decent cookie manager I ever encountered was Camino for Mac?

    Originally posted by puntarenas View Post
    Looks promising, but Epiphany lacks two must-have extensions:
    2) elaborated AdBlocker
    Well, then you'll be delighted to read this:
    http://blogs.igalia.com/mario/2011/1...ys-ad-blocker/

    Leave a comment:


  • Teho
    replied
    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    A snooping feature is enabled by default. Saying it can be disabled does not make the feature, or having it enabled by default, ok.
    The possibility for snooping is side product of "predictive searching" which itself is undoubtably a feature. You mistakenly expect your own values to be unversal but even if we consider having such feature on by default to be "unacceptable" then so what? How does it make the browser any worse when it's turned off? Should we let such irrelevant philosophical dissonance affect our choise of a browser? And maybe most importantly what does this have to do with the topic?

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    A snooping feature is enabled by default. Saying it can be disabled does not make the feature, or having it enabled by default, ok.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teho
    replied
    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    "It can be disabled" is no defense for "it's on by default".
    Defence for what? I don't see how easily disableable feature can be argument against anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    "It can be disabled" is no defense for "it's on by default".

    Leave a comment:


  • Teho
    replied
    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    Wait, other browsers send your URLs you personally type in to google if you have it as a search engine? Name one.
    It can be disabled with single option or by changing the default search engine of Chrome/Chromium on settings page. If any other browser were to provide similar functionality to what Chrome's omnibar has (predicts what you are writing by comparing it to data that Google has) it would have to do the same. As it's a feature that can be disabled I don't see the problem here but it's definetly nice for those that like predictive searching.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X