# chromium or iridium,  which use?



## wolffnx (May 23, 2020)

Hi to all, I'been used Iridium for a while, and now I'notice 2 big diferences with Chromium

-Chromium is faster that Iridium
-Chromium is up to date

in your personal opinions..what think about iridium? worth it using it? side to side with Chromium


----------



## Alain De Vos (May 23, 2020)

firefox-esr is not up to date with firefox. Yet I use firefox-esr.
For iridium it is said it should improve privacy.


----------



## Argentum (May 23, 2020)

I am writing this message on 'firefox-76.0.1_3,1', but I have also 'chromium-81.0.4044.138_1' running. Both are good, hard to tell which is better.


----------



## wolffnx (May 23, 2020)

Alain De Vos said:


> firefox-esr is not up to date with firefox. Yet I use firefox-esr.
> For iridium it is said it should improve privacy.



yes,iridium is supose to be for more privacy features..but if is out of date is uselless(supose to be secure..so)
firefox is hard a stone,but seems slow compared to chromium(to me)


----------



## wolffnx (May 23, 2020)

Argentum said:


> I am writing this message on 'firefox-76.0.1_3,1', but I have also 'chromium-81.0.4044.138_1' running. Both are good, hard to tell which is better.


I'have to give a try..but firefox in some point becomes too bloated and cold(gtk3..only black and white icons) I'hate it..and just like says to Alain De Vos  chromium feels faster in rendering pages


----------



## wolffnx (May 23, 2020)

sorry..forgot to mention, the start speed of the application also is important, iridium and chromium are equal


----------



## Alain De Vos (May 23, 2020)

My measure of bloatedeness is rather easy. Compiletime. For Chromium It's about 100 times the compile time of the kernel. On my PC, a day. Number of codelines also huge.


----------



## rootbert (May 23, 2020)

wolffnx said:


> yes,iridium is supose to be for more privacy features..but if is out of date is uselless(supose to be secure..so)
> firefox is hard a stone,but seems slow compared to chromium(to me)


In times like these I would not want to use a hopelessly out of date browser package ... go with chromium or firefox(-esr).


----------



## obsigna (May 23, 2020)

I would use anything but Iridium, which is just another software package from entitled developers which are too bored for giving educated responses to reasonable user's questions. For example: https://github.com/iridium-browser/tracker/issues/79.

I would love to see Vivaldi on FreeBSD.


----------



## Alain De Vos (May 23, 2020)

Openbsd also has firefox-esr and iridium, proving it is not bad.


----------



## zirias@ (May 23, 2020)

Alain De Vos said:


> My measure of bloatedeness is rather easy. Compiletime. For Chromium It's about 100 times the compile time of the kernel. On my PC, a day. Number of codelines also huge.


A "modern" browser is an application platform. So, it's pretty similar to a complete operating system in complexity, and also has to contain things like a rendering engine, a (fast) runtime environment, etc. Therefore, comparing the compile time to "just" a kernel isn't really a fit.

Of course, if you want a browser just for retrieving and rendering some hypermedia documents, this is grossly exaggerated. But with such a "basic" browser, a lot of services offered in today's web won't work.


----------



## kpedersen (May 23, 2020)

Alain De Vos said:


> Openbsd also has firefox-esr and iridium, proving it is not bad.



They have some fair amounts of additions though. For example they have their pledge() system integrated. Also they have disabled shm meaning that for desktop sharing, etc they have to fall back on a slower XImage alternative.

FreeBSD sticks to rather vanilla Chrome, Firefox, etc. Unfortunately browser manufacturers these days are far from trustworthy. So use the latest version you can and preferably run them in a Jail or a VM.


----------



## Alain De Vos (May 23, 2020)

Paranoic remark, I wander what google learns about me when i use Chromium and how they monetize that information ...


----------



## wolffnx (May 23, 2020)

obsigna said:


> I would love to see Vivaldi on FreeBSD.



I'ts too post-mortem says "updated Opera"??


----------



## wolffnx (May 23, 2020)

Alain De Vos said:


> Paranoic remark, I wander what google learns about me when i use Chromium and how they monetize that information ...



but there we a way to block that "spy" from google not?
a local DNS at home,etc


----------



## Minbari (May 23, 2020)

I've used iridium till this weekend when but I give up on it because is outdated. I still have it on Arch and it is version 2020.04 from Fedora (chromium 81.0-1). The FreeBSD version on the other hand is 2019.04.73_7, also since I'm using ports, the time for building him take almost 4 hours. I do need a second web browser on my machine but that it's not gone be www/chromium. For the moment I "hacked"  Firefox and I'm using more profiles. Hopefully we are gonna see again in ports SeaMonkey or Brave.


----------



## obsigna (May 23, 2020)

wolffnx said:


> I'ts too post-mortem says "updated Opera"??


I don't understand what you want to tell with this.

I never used Opera not even for testing. So I cannot be disappointed because a beloved feature of Opera is not found in Vivaldi - I can't care less. Vivaldi is based on Chromium and it is updated frequently. When you open it, you see immediately that it was build by people who care for the details. Everything is clean, lean and you have quick access to the most needed functions. So, yes, I would like to see Vivaldi on FreeBSD.


----------



## Alain De Vos (May 23, 2020)

Note, the number of webbrowsers capable of playing youtube is rather limited. epiphany and otter-browser can't. 
falkon & qute-browser can.


----------



## shkhln (May 23, 2020)

obsigna said:


> I would love to see Vivaldi on FreeBSD.



You might be able to run the Linux version with disabled sandboxing.


----------



## Phishfry (May 24, 2020)

One thing I find strange about Iridium is that it advertises as:
"A Browser Securing Your Privacy"
But yet when you fire it up all kinds of settings changes need to be made to make it secure.
Why would then not make it secure out of the box? That is their shtick.
Mozilla does the same thing but we know they are driven by corporate  sponsors.


----------



## shkhln (May 24, 2020)

Wow… That is some rage inducing UI.


----------



## wolffnx (May 24, 2020)

obsigna said:


> I don't understand what you want to tell with this.



because a long time I'use opera and i'love it ,and I'like to see the current version in the ports but is dead alooong time ago


----------



## fernandel (May 24, 2020)

At work we use Vivaldi on Windows  and is very good as obsigna wrote.
At home is my first browser www/cliqz which is for me better then Firefox but it is sad because they stopped development:
https://www.burda.com/en/news/cliqz-closes-areas-browser-and-search-technologies/


----------



## jmos (May 24, 2020)

Alain De Vos said:


> Note, the number of webbrowsers capable of playing youtube is rather limited. epiphany and otter-browser can't.



Otter Browser plays YouTube here.
Chromium isn't an option to me - even if it is open source I don't want to support Google power more than needed (and I also don't like their foggy efforts of making more tracking possible). So I go with different Firefox profiles (not ESR), and if I need the other renderengine I use Falkon (or Otter Browser). Some months ago I used Seamonkey with disabled Mail, Composer etc.…


----------



## hruodr (May 24, 2020)

Who decides, which browser you must use, is not you, but the owner of the web sites you visit.

The most want that you use chrome, you can use chromium, then iridium, and continue get away from what you must use, but not without consequences.


----------



## jb_fvwm2 (May 27, 2020)

firefox is deprecated as of december 2020 ???


----------



## wolffnx (May 27, 2020)

The same here

message about deprecated ports

I'ts seem that firefox has Python 2.7 dependency (or one of related packages)


----------



## Alain De Vos (May 27, 2020)

Is seem quite logical if python2.7 is deprecated that dependent packages become deprecated also.


----------



## memreflect (May 27, 2020)

It's actually a pretty bad situation if you're looking at the build dependencies:

```
$ portgraph -p www/firefox
$ egrep -e '-> "lang/python27"' firefox
        "graphics/mesa-libs" -> "lang/python27" [color="#009999"]
        "www/node" -> "lang/python27" [color="#009999"]
        "lang/spidermonkey60" -> "lang/python27" [color="#009999"]
        "www/firefox" -> "lang/python27" [color="#009999"]
```

Firefox relies upon Python 3.8 at runtime, not Python 2.7, but if you can't even build the port, I have no idea what is supposed to happen.  But Firefox is not a big deal when you consider that x11-servers/xorg-server and x11-servers/xwayland both rely on graphics/mesa-libs as well, which needs Python 2.7 to build as you can see above.  Clearly there's a problem.

I just used `poudriere testport` with a modified Makefile.common to build the package using python3.5+ per the Mesa 3D compilation instructions instead of python2.7, and it built fine.  So there's theoretically no reason to require Python 2.7 for graphics/mesa-libs and graphics/mesa-dri if the builds don't fail or otherwise cause trouble on other architectures.


----------



## Alain De Vos (May 27, 2020)

Once everything is build and installed you can do,
chmod 000 /usr/local/bin/python2.7
And everything works fine.


----------

