chromium or iridium, which use?

wolffnx

wolffnx

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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

yes,iridium is supose to be for more privacy features..but if is out of date is uselless(supose to be secure..so)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)
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
sorry..forgot to mention, the start speed of the application also is important, iridium and chromium are equal
 
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.
 
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yes,iridium is supose to be for more privacy features..but if is out of date is uselless(supose to be secure..so)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)
Click to expand...
In times like these I would not want to use a hopelessly out of date browser package ... go with chromium or firefox(-esr).
 
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 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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Alain De Vos said:
Openbsd also has firefox-esr and iridium, proving it is not bad. :)
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
wolffnx said:
I'ts too post-mortem says "updated Opera"??
Click to expand...
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.
 
Note, the number of webbrowsers capable of playing youtube is rather limited. epiphany and otter-browser can't.
falkon & qute-browser can.
 
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.
 
accidentally-fat-tabs-fs8.png


Wow… That is some rage inducing UI.
 
Alain De Vos said:
Note, the number of webbrowsers capable of playing youtube is rather limited. epiphany and otter-browser can't.
Click to expand...

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.…
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top