3 ms·

>I agree with the dependency that you describe. Because the browser depends on the OS, if the OS is insecure, I consider the browser insecure as well. Yes -- i

>I agree with the dependency that you describe. Because the browser depends on the OS, if the OS is insecure, I consider the browser insecure as well. Yes -- if you have a secure Browser running on an insecure OS, your secure Browser is insecure. If you have a secure Browser running on a secure OS on insecure hardware, then your "secure" OS is insecure, and your "secure" Browser -- is also insecure! "A chain is only as strong as the weakest link" -- as the old saying goes! A software security chain (multiple dependent components) that must run on a hardware security chain (again, multiple dependent components) that must communicate over the Internet (another security chain, again, multiple multiple dependent components) is only as strong/secure as its weakest link. >So, let me rephrase the original argument: because the OS dead, it doesn't make sense for developers to support it, because no matter how secure they make their software, the dead, insecure OS will render that insecure as well. Our debate (if we actually have one!) is not so much about security (secondary aspect!) so much as it is about the simplicity/understandability/controllability/transparency/public auditability aka the "democratization" -- of systems. We need simple! "As simple as possible, and not simpler!" -- as Einstein famously said! Chrome/Chromium (more generally "The Web Browser" -- complex ones that support all known modern day Web features) and the OS'ses that support those browsers need to be "cleaned up" -- radically refactored and documented into the simplest, most-understandable pieces of software that will still support those features... Think of it this way... if those systems grow in complexity over time, and if humanity's knowledge of them correspondingly shrinks over time, then eventually the time will come in Earth's future when those systems can no longer be maintained, cause more problems then they solve, and will eventually have to be abandoned for lower technological levels. >Please consider the original argument. The original "argument", which I made, in my original post, was as follows: >>"I wish to award massive kudos to the Author, because it's about time that somebody began the onerous (yet absolutely necessary!) task of backporting Chrome/Chromium to older simpler/more understandable -- systems." and >>"In the future, it would be great to see the simplest (least amount of lines of code) OS that could successfully run Chrome/Chromium -- but even going a step farther than that, it might be an idea to freeze the Chrome/Chromium source at a certain point, then simplify Chrome/Chroumium such that its dependencies on an underlying OS were minimized! In other words, develop a fork of Chrome/Chromium in lock-step with developing the simplest OS that Chrome/Chromium could possibly run on, with the corresponding idea of refactoring all of that software into the simplest, cleanest, most documented, most modular piece of software that is or could exist." The Author of Supermium deserves massive kudos, massive thanks -- for taking the first hard step in that process... Security, if it exists, is a side-aspect (an effect, not a cause!) of the simplicity/clarity/transparency/auditability of a given software stack, a given software chain. If parts of that chain are opaque and/or "black boxes", then those may have problems in the future! I prefer completely transparent, completely auditable software chains, if they are available, and if I can get them (some vendors force opaque, black-box binary blobs down their customers' throats, and sometimes there isn't anything a customer can do about it...)... Anyway, you're welcome to select whatever software stack you want on top of whatever hardware stack you want, with whatever degree of opacity/transparancy you want (as is everybody else!) -- but I prefer transparent and auditable (open source software, open source hardware) whenever I can get it...

npteljes 3y ago
Thanks for elaborating, I actually understand the point now. I agree that it would be nice to have simpler hardware, and I also prefer open source. I'm not sure how the porting to old Windows helps this goal, as it's complex and also closed source. I do the spirit of the project though, the hacking, the making possible the seemingly impossible. And I consider this a right of the people, the right to tinker with the software that they have. With regard to freezing the chromium in place, I'm not sure if I get the point. If I could freeze something, or get something completely out to the open, are the standards that we communicate on, not the anything that consumes it. In this, I love to see that many of the standards are now actually open to begin with. For example with video, the landscape was pretty horrible in the early 2000s, but now, the major players are actually collaborating on open standards, like the av1, and the result is that we all win. Back to simplicity, I'd love it if we had a popular, lo-fi version of the internet, like how the Gemini protocol is. It would be a great thing if, for example, one such spec would be governed by law, and government services, banking, email and other such things would be accessible by it. If done well, this would be something that really uplifts the people, well, at least as much as access to digital services can.
- peter_d_sherman 3y ago
  >I'm not sure how the porting to old Windows helps this goal, as it's complex and also closed source. If something works on old Windows, then chances are that it will also work on ReactOS, which is open source. In other words, if new Chromium can work on old Windows and then on ReactOS, then when it completely and successfully works on ReactOS, now you've got open source for the OS and the Browser. But, we shouldn't stop at ReactOS... Full ReactOS compatibility with no issues is just a step on the path of getting it to still older/simpler Operating Systems, like Minix 3 -- which in turn is a much simpler open source Operating System than even ReactOS. And even that isn't enough... the code for the whole Browser, in conjunction with the code for the underlying OS -- need to be refactored down much further, I'm guessing at least a 10x LOC reduction -- with no loss in functionality -- and a probable upgrade in speed... and much better documentation... By "Freezing" Chromium -- I mean "don't add any more features until the aforementioned refactoring has taken place". In other words, stop adding lines of code -- and start subtracting. >"For example with video, the landscape was pretty horrible in the early 2000s, but now, the major players are actually collaborating on open standards, like the av1, and the result is that we all win." Agreed totally! >"Back to simplicity, I'd love it if we had a popular, lo-fi version of the internet, like how the Gemini protocol is. It would be a great thing if, for example, one such spec would be governed by law, and government services, banking, email and other such things would be accessible by it. If done well, this would be something that really uplifts the people, well, at least as much as access to digital services can." Nothing prevents the government, any government, local or federal, foreign or domestic -- from creating their own protocols (as many of them as they want) and legislating those protocols as they see fit. Of course, there may be issues with cross-border, cross-jurisdiction, cross-country compatibility between a protocol created in one region by one government of a certain scale and used in another region by another government of a different scale... Then you have to ask who is legally bound by what, when, where, and why... Of course, governments that are free to enter into legally binding agreements with other governments -- are always free to enter legally binding agreements with other governments to legislate how/what/when/where/why their protocols are used... In other words, they're more than free to implement their own protocols, and subsequently legislate their usage (subject to their own Constitutions and sets of laws, parlimentary procedures, law approval processes, etc.), if they should so wish...

npteljes 3y ago

Thanks for elaborating, I actually understand the point now. I agree that it would be nice to have simpler hardware, and I also prefer open source. I'm not sure how the porting to old Windows helps this goal, as it's complex and also closed source. I do the spirit of the project though, the hacking, the making possible the seemingly impossible. And I consider this a right of the people, the right to tinker with the software that they have. With regard to freezing the chromium in place, I'm not sure if I get the point. If I could freeze something, or get something completely out to the open, are the standards that we communicate on, not the anything that consumes it. In this, I love to see that many of the standards are now actually open to begin with. For example with video, the landscape was pretty horrible in the early 2000s, but now, the major players are actually collaborating on open standards, like the av1, and the result is that we all win. Back to simplicity, I'd love it if we had a popular, lo-fi version of the internet, like how the Gemini protocol is. It would be a great thing if, for example, one such spec would be governed by law, and government services, banking, email and other such things would be accessible by it. If done well, this would be something that really uplifts the people, well, at least as much as access to digital services can.

peter_d_sherman 3y ago
>I'm not sure how the porting to old Windows helps this goal, as it's complex and also closed source. If something works on old Windows, then chances are that it will also work on ReactOS, which is open source. In other words, if new Chromium can work on old Windows and then on ReactOS, then when it completely and successfully works on ReactOS, now you've got open source for the OS and the Browser. But, we shouldn't stop at ReactOS... Full ReactOS compatibility with no issues is just a step on the path of getting it to still older/simpler Operating Systems, like Minix 3 -- which in turn is a much simpler open source Operating System than even ReactOS. And even that isn't enough... the code for the whole Browser, in conjunction with the code for the underlying OS -- need to be refactored down much further, I'm guessing at least a 10x LOC reduction -- with no loss in functionality -- and a probable upgrade in speed... and much better documentation... By "Freezing" Chromium -- I mean "don't add any more features until the aforementioned refactoring has taken place". In other words, stop adding lines of code -- and start subtracting. >"For example with video, the landscape was pretty horrible in the early 2000s, but now, the major players are actually collaborating on open standards, like the av1, and the result is that we all win." Agreed totally! >"Back to simplicity, I'd love it if we had a popular, lo-fi version of the internet, like how the Gemini protocol is. It would be a great thing if, for example, one such spec would be governed by law, and government services, banking, email and other such things would be accessible by it. If done well, this would be something that really uplifts the people, well, at least as much as access to digital services can." Nothing prevents the government, any government, local or federal, foreign or domestic -- from creating their own protocols (as many of them as they want) and legislating those protocols as they see fit. Of course, there may be issues with cross-border, cross-jurisdiction, cross-country compatibility between a protocol created in one region by one government of a certain scale and used in another region by another government of a different scale... Then you have to ask who is legally bound by what, when, where, and why... Of course, governments that are free to enter into legally binding agreements with other governments -- are always free to enter legally binding agreements with other governments to legislate how/what/when/where/why their protocols are used... In other words, they're more than free to implement their own protocols, and subsequently legislate their usage (subject to their own Constitutions and sets of laws, parlimentary procedures, law approval processes, etc.), if they should so wish...