2 ms·
(2) is a real concern that I also share on their page, this is the only information on the project admin: https://codeberg.org/ohfp https://codeberg.org/ohfp
by blibble 2y ago
(2) is a real concern that I also share
on their page, this is the only information on the project admin: https://codeberg.org/ohfp https://codeberg.org/ohfp
who is this? can I trust them with literally my entire digital life and that of my family?
this is a serious problem, "ohfp" might very well be trustworthy but at present there's no way to know
your (4) would go a real way to solving this, but for now I'm not biting
I'd rather take the risk that mozilla sell me some ads than use a browser with zero provenance
- hedora 2y agoI wonder how big the patchset is vs. upstream, and how hard it is to compile yourself. I’m not suggesting end-users do this, but I could see, e.g., a debian maintainer doing it.
- NoahKAndrews 2y agoIt's maintained as a set of patch files, so it's at least easy to see how it differs from upstream. The number of patches seemed somewhat manageable, though with the few I looked at I found myself wishing that they had much better documentation.
- 3np 2y agoIt's actually totally managable and reasonable for an end-user to stay on top of their patches and run a personally built subfork. I think it's better to think of it a a starting-point and template for your own builds rather than a Product. They're reasonably tidy, not too big, and much of the size comes from a typical userprefs a la arkenfox. I don't see why you would dissuade before even looking? This is one of those scenarios where verifying the work is a small fraction of the time and expertise to produce it.