Package Details: ungoogled-chromium 131.0.6778.264-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/ungoogled-chromium.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: ungoogled-chromium
Description: A lightweight approach to removing Google web service dependency
Upstream URL: https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium
Keywords: blink browser privacy web
Licenses: BSD-3-Clause
Conflicts: chromedriver, chromium
Provides: chromedriver, chromium
Submitter: ilikenwf
Maintainer: JstKddng (networkException)
Last Packager: networkException
Votes: 353
Popularity: 3.60
First Submitted: 2016-12-19 08:08 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2025-01-09 17:44 (UTC)

Dependencies (49)

Required by (135)

Sources (14)

Pinned Comments

JstKddng commented on 2022-05-06 14:37 (UTC) (edited on 2022-06-27 13:48 (UTC) by JstKddng)

A new va-api patch for wayland has been added. Required flags for it to work are the following, thanks to @acidunit

--disable-features=UseChromeOSDirectVideoDecoder
--enable-hardware-overlays

JstKddng commented on 2020-07-19 06:34 (UTC)

You can get prebuilt binaries here:

https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium-archlinux#binary-downloads

seppia commented on 2018-12-12 21:34 (UTC)

Please do NOT flag this package as out of date in relation to official chromium releases.

This is NOT Google Chromium and new releases come after additional work of the ungoogled-chromium contributors, so they may not be ready, nor available for days or even weeks after a new version of official chromium is released.

Please refer to https://github.com/Eloston/ungoogled-chromium/tags for ungoogled-chromium releases. Use those and please flag this package as out of date only if a newer release is present there. I will update the PKGBUILD as soon as I can every time a new release comes out.

Thanks

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 .. 66 Next › Last »

MasterOne commented on 2019-12-02 14:01 (UTC)

@bsdice, yes, this is of big concern!

I am still drawn between the use of Firefox and ungoogled-chromium, and I just can't seem to be able to make up my mind. Will you stick to ungoogled-chromium no matter what?

bsdice commented on 2019-12-02 10:11 (UTC)

To whom it may be of concern:

Chromium, and thus ungoogled-chromium, today has sadly become only a second-class citizen when it comes to blocking web objects from unwanted sources: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/commit/3a564c199260a857f3d78d5f12b8c3f1aa85b865

TLDR; The ad industry is abusing a DNS feature to "cloak" their servers, in order to be more difficult to block. Countermeasures require browser support that only Firefox has today. I would hope that a developer can come up with a patch over the holidays that adds the webext API "dns" to ungoogled-chromium. And that Gorhill can implement this as an option for the Chromium version.

Does Google have an interest to not implement this, because they are foremost an ad-company? Sure. Do I not want to execute unknown and malicious javascript on a browser with sub-par security on Intel CPUs with abysmal security track record? For sure. Will 99.9% of users care? Surely not, they eat what Google or Microsoft care to serve.

tpaniaki commented on 2019-11-17 19:54 (UTC)

@seppia @Megumi_fox: thanks for your quick feedback and update. Apparently that was indeed the problem.

seppia commented on 2019-11-17 09:48 (UTC)

@jfk your error (which can't be determined only from the line you pasted here) was probably due to the icu 65 bug in chromium reported here by Megumi_fox. You should now be able to build ungoogled-chromium again.

seppia commented on 2019-11-17 09:45 (UTC)

I temporarily added explicitly into the PKGBUILD the patch needed for building against the new icu, so you could already build ungoogled-chromium again while this patch is being added to ungoogled-chromium-archlinux on github.

Megumi_fox commented on 2019-11-15 08:36 (UTC)

building this pkg got this： In file included from gen/third_party/blink/renderer/core/dom/dom_jumbo_2.cc:14: ./../../third_party/blink/renderer/core/dom/document.cc:6235:39: error: expected ';' after do/while statement^M U16_NEXT(characters, i, length, c) ^ ; 1 error generated. @jfk Seems like need this patch https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/plain/trunk/icu65.patch?h=packages/chromium

tpaniaki commented on 2019-11-15 00:41 (UTC) (edited on 2019-11-15 01:03 (UTC) by tpaniaki)

Got this while updating 78.0.3904.97-1:

1 error generated. [21579/22451] CXX obj/third_party/blink/renderer/core/exported/exported/exported_jumbo_8.o ninja: build stopped: subcommand failed.

Not very comprehensive. Any idea?

JstKddng commented on 2019-11-11 20:19 (UTC)

@bsdice

Another thing to add to the list is that chromium is faster that FF, also, once google releases the new changes it will probably take some time for ungoogled chromium to catch up. And maybe at that point ungoogled chromium will start to diverge a lot from upstream chromium.

bsdice commented on 2019-11-11 16:20 (UTC)

@MasterOne Concerning Firefox's drawbacks I can only offer a rather personal list:

  • Privacy concerns, like sending all DNS traffic to Cloudflare
  • Tracking on by default (hyperlink auditing)
  • The bundled Cliqz crapware affair
  • No VAAPI hardware acceleration for video (doubling or tripling power usage)
  • Abandonment of XUL two years ago led to alot of functionality breakage
  • Using same profile with old/new versions will corrupt the profile
  • Trying to nudge users into a privacy-hostile Firefox Account for their profile
  • Much less rigorous auditing of code base (or how to explain CVE-2019-15903) compared to Chromium's manpower, including Project Zero
  • Even for seasoned developers building binaries is most painful
  • Ads on the start screen
  • Other breakage like the expired add-on certificate, disabling add-ons (that one hit the Tor Browser Bundle users hardest)
  • 90% or more of Mozilla Foundation's revenue is coming from Google through their search engine preference deals. Google does not need this, considering Firefox' small market share (3-5% depending who you ask). IMO they are keeping Mozilla only alive to be able to thwart off browser antitrust allegations, should they arise in the future. "What do you mean there are no alternatives!?". In case the stack of lobbying money in Washington D.C. fails to provide the expected return on investment.

Sounding a bit like RMS or deraadt here, apologies. Also only tangentially relevant for this package, again apologies. I would donate 50 bucks to keep ungoogled-chromium alive with all its plugins. My fallback plan is the Palemoon browser, a Firefox fork, also available here in AUR.

MasterOne commented on 2019-11-11 14:45 (UTC)

@bsdice, thanks for the information and quite a bummer. Hopefully these changes really can be reverted!

I agree with your statements about the claims by Chromium + Google Developers and Pi-Hole users, but I'm not so sure what you mean concerning Firefox. Can you please elaborate on that?

I currently have ungoogled-chromium and Firefox installed, but after some playing around, I am only using Firefox, mainly due to the possibility to use containers (Multi-Account Containers + Facebook Container + Temporary Containers).

I really wanted to go for ungoogled-chromium, not only for HW accelerated video support, but I just didn't get comfortable with it, especially with Extension Manifest V3 looming over its head.

Sorry for OT and I know this is not a discussion forum, but I'm always looking for some more info and I'm curious why others prefer a Chromium-based browser over Firefox. ;)

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 .. 66 Next › Last »