[needs-packaging] iron

[Mark]

There is a package in lucid for the google browser chromium: chromium-browser

I would suggest that instead of delivering chromium ubuntu should package iron, which is chromium minus google spy-ware.
http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_download.php
http://www.srware.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=835

[Brian Murray (brian-murray)]

*** This is an automated message ***

This bug is tagged needs-packaging which identifies it as a request for a new package in Ubuntu. As a part of the managing needs-packaging bug reports specification, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/Specs/NeedsPackagingBugs, all needs-packaging bug reports have Wishlist importance. Subsequently, I'm setting this bug's status to Wishlist.

[Matthias Klumpp (ximion)]

Hmmm... Can't find the source code. Is Iron OpenSource? What are the features Chrome has and Chromium hasn't? (I think Chromium is also built without Google dependency.)

[Mark (mark-wege)]

The source code download is at the bottom the page
http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_download.php
and here you can find the differences between iron and chrome

http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php

[aporter (aporter)]

"I think Chromium is also built without Google dependency." Matthias, that is incorrect. Chromium still depends on google (and sends private information to google). What made you say chromium in ubuntu was built without google dependency?

[Matthias Klumpp (ximion)]

I don't use Chromium, I thought read it somewhere that Chromium does not require Google... From Wikipedia:
Google takes this source code and adds on the Google name and logo, an auto-updater system called GoogleUpdate, an opt-in option for users to send Google their usage statistics and crash reports as well as RLZ-tracking which transmits information in encoded form to Google, for example, when and where Chrome has been downloaded.

Well, I think we can build Iron at least for GetDeb. Why is the sourcecode only available as split archive at Rapidshare? (This makes it impossible to make Iron available in Ubuntu's universe repositories)
Is there a chance to get one tarball containing the code which is not distributed via Rapidshare?

[aporter (aporter)]

Matthias, I sent SRWare an email.

Basically I asked if they had a place other than rapidshare that we could download the source and I asked if they had a place where it wasn't split up into parts (i.e. 001, 002, 003, 004). I'll let you know if they reply.

Just for my own curiosity, can you explain "makes it impossible to make Iron available in Ubuntu's universe repositories". Which? Is it the rapidshare location or the split into parts problem or both? Why?

Thanks in advance,

adrian

[Matthias Klumpp (ximion)]

Both. Rapidshare has a -- weird download system with timeouts, bandwidth
and time limitations etc. which makes impossible for uscan to detect new
package versions.
A good package should be able to check for new upstream versions. And I'm
pretty sure that debuild can't work with split archives. The new version of
the packaging specs make it possible to build from more than one source
package, but not from split source packages. (If I'm wrong, please correct
me)
I'll try to build a package from the given source tomorrow.

On Tue, 18 May 2010 22:44:50 -0000, aporter <email address hidden>
wrote:
> Matthias, I sent SRWare an email.
>
> Basically I asked if they had a place other than rapidshare that we
> could download the source and I asked if they had a place where it
> wasn't split up into parts (i.e. 001, 002, 003, 004). I'll let you know
> if they reply.
>
> Just for my own curiosity, can you explain "makes it impossible to make
> Iron available in Ubuntu's universe repositories". Which? Is it the
> rapidshare location or the split into parts problem or both? Why?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> adrian

[Matthias Klumpp (ximion)]

Hmm... After searching for some information about Iron, I found this one about Iron:
> http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2009/12/iron.html
By the details mentioned in the article, I have to question the purpose of Iron again... And if it was just built to get publicity it's not worth packaging. Better use Chromium instead and change its configuration.
Also, there seems to be no community and no open development of this project.

[Christoph Korn (c-korn)]

I think there is no need for another browser unless there is evidence for the following assumptions:
 - Whether the Chromium browser does not protect the user's privacy.
 - Whether the Iron browser protects the user's privacy.
 - Whether the Iron browser is actively maintained.

[aporter (aporter)]

Hello Christoph,

 - Whether the Chromium browser does not protect the user's privacy.

Run "sudo tcpdump -n port 80" and type something into the URL bar. Everything you type into the URL bar (as you type it) is getting sent to 1e100.net for the purposes of displaying results in the bar. See also http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php for evidence.

 - Whether the Iron browser protects the user's privacy.

Can't say much about this. Is there evidence that google protects the user's privacy?

 - Whether the Iron browser is actively maintained.

Can't say much about this except they've been releasing new versions every few months.

adrian

[Matthias Klumpp (ximion)]

I agree with Christoph, as more as I learn about Iron it seems to be a very - weird project. There has been a lot of discussion about it, even inside Debian. Debian has decided not to include Iron if the current situation does not change. So, I'll wait and see too.

[aporter (aporter)]

Ok, that is an interesting link and I had a few eye-opening moments (I read almost all of the original chat log). However, I disagree with many of the assessments on that page. Regardless, it may be very difficult to do what SRWare has done, and chromium still has all of the problems that created the need for Iron. For whatever reason people haven't "fixed" chromium. Oh and you were right about rapidshare, it's a pain in the ass!

Though your suggestions sound fine with me, I guess. Is there any way we can see some of these changes put into chromium? I'm new to ubuntu policies so I don't know how one would go about getting this done. I have attached a *partial* list of differences between Chromium and Iron to this ticket.

You can read the patch directly (preferred) or apply the patch to a checkout:

svn export http://src.chromium.org/svn/trunk/@37090
cd trunk
patch -p1 <../patch-iron-partial-37090

I haven't tried to compile or test anything, this is just what I have found from downloading the rapidshare files.

adrian

[Christoph Korn (c-korn)]

If the changes are not significantly greater than this small patch I think it is the best idea to cooperate with upstream to make Chromium more privacy friendly instead of just attaching a small patch to a browser and handle it as a completely other browser.

[Matthias Klumpp (ximion)]

The patch just changes the browser's branding and removes a few functions - all other stuff is just original Chromium.
The minor changes should be integrated upstream or made available as patch for the Debian package, if relevant.

[aporter (aporter)]

Yes, yes. Everybody thinks we should push this to the chromium package, or upstream debian, or upstream chromium. Which one is best? Also how?

"How" is the important question.

thanks,

adrian

[Børge Johannessen (lmdebruker)]

I'm a new iron user!
Light and easy web-browser - wondering if I should replace my favourite firefox-browser...

I'm also woting for Iron Web in Ubuntu as standard.

[Matthias Klumpp (ximion)]

Iron = Chromium with changed default settings

[aporter (aporter)]

These default settings seem important though. A lot of people (myself included) seem to think the default settings are a little silly.