NotHereToPlayGames

Maybe a better way to explain my THEORY on the mere presence of that HOSTED APP is this - some of the XP Browsers over the years had TIME BOMBS embedded in their code. It was VERY easy to DEFUSE those TIME BOMBS. But that time bomb had to EXPLODE first before most of us even REALIZED that there was a TIME BOMB present at all. I personally think that this CWS HOSTED APP is a TIME BOMB just waiting to "do its thing". Can't prove it, just a THEORY. If it IS a time bomb, I'll be certain to say "I told you so". If not, you are of course encouraged to say the same. BUT now we have TWO variables at play. Did YOUR time bomb not explode because of the additional modifications that you have now made? And the untouched version of Thorium, without updating, have its time bomb explode? Both of these events can only be tested in the future, once Google carries through with their promise of deactivating all MV2.

That's what I thought, I was curious if you made it FURTHER. I don't think you're fully there yet, to be honest. Only TIME will tell. I think the real test will be when CWS (ie, "part of" that HOSTED APP) removes MV2 and your browser, despite having "no connections" to CWS, will react. I can only SPECULATE until then, but my THEORY is that no amount of any developer claiming "our goal is to maintain MV2 compatibiliy" will be 100% EFFECTIVE if this CWS HOSTED APP is "present". It's not about it "connecting" to CWS, it's about just what is the FUNCTION of that APP being there, sitting idle, ready to pounce when it is supposed to "do" something.

Members are allowed to delete their accounts. The Account Settings page used to have a button at the bottom where we could all delete our own account. That option is disabled nowadays (it was present a couple days ago during the "flag fix" rollout). But even without the button on the Account Settings page, we can all request through any of the moderators to have our accounts deleted.

The methods I used to remove from 360Chrome do not apply to Supermium and Thorium. Since migrating to Win10, I have no use for either of them "so far". That could easily change in the future, but for now, "not for me". I follow there development as a casual observer only because of how fast the internet changes and liking to know "where they stand" when/if my current default (Official Ungoogled v122) no longer serves my needs. The last Official Ungoogled that I tried was v128 and my bank accound password submission does not work (just like in v125, v126, and v127). For all I know, it started working in v129 and I have no clue what version they are at currently. But it is not something on Ungoogled's side of things. There are reports for the same bank not working in Brave. It may be fixed by now in Brave, unsure, I only catch those forums once a month or so. I basically have lost interest in the amount of time and effort that is required to "fork" something like 360Chrome and I am no longer interested in falling down that rabbit hole. If D.Draker has found a way to remove the HOSTED APP in Thorium, all the power to him. I've not seen evidence to support that he has succeeded, but he has the vested interest here, not me. I'm just a casual observer at this point.

That alone very likely did NOT remove the HOSTED APP. Can you provide a screencap showing HOSTED APP DATA === NONE ?

I highly doubt it! My theory is this, just wait, when the CWS goes 100% MV3 vs MV2, it is this HOSTED APP that is going to disable/delete/etc any-and-all non-MV3 extensions that you may have. And it does not require access to the internet to perform this task! Just wait. Supermium and Thorium keeps claiming that they will keep MV2 compatibility - I am skeptic, this HOSTED APP is there for a reason!

Bingo! Precisely why I "finally" abandoned XP and the dog-chasing-tail aspect of trying to maintain some degree of web-browsability on XP. And to me, it was just as "pointless" to do it all over again on 7 and see how long I could keep the same degree of web-browsability on 7. Vista for me is a NO-GO! You can't PAY me to run Vista. "To each their own", of course. I am ECSTATIC with my "nosed, decked, and shaved" Win10 LTSB 2016, so still very much an "old OS". I keep watching Thorium and Supermium. They're not for me YET, but who knows what "tomorrow" brings.

That might work, I cannot claim to have attempted. All I know is that I would *never* use any web browser that has that PERMANENT HOSTED APP present. To each their own, of course. I'm not hiding anything from Google, per se. I just believe in PRIVACY RIGHTS OF THE CONSUMER. It's SAD to me that most consumers don't care any more. First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. —Martin Niemöller

The best answer to "where" is all over the place. It's not "one or two" locations, it is all over the place. google/bing/duckduckgo for Ungoogled Chromium's github page. They provide all of the "patches" required. I could not apply these patches to 360Chrome. I had to instead painstakingly scour every LINE of every required patch and apply the code manually. Remember that I was dealing with v86 and we're up to v130 or v140 nowadays, I lose track of the constant updating. All of the patch code is PUBLIC DOMAIN. Ungoogled Chromium hides nothing.

The other "test" is to monitor your cookies. Open your browser but never visit any web site. Clear your cache and again, never visit any web site. Keep that browser open for several hours, if not DAYS, and again, never visit any web site. Just let the web browser sit idle on a computer you are not using. May have to exit and relaunch the browser every couple of days or so, do not recall. These are the types of tests I performed before ever claiming my releases to be "ungoogled". My "ungoogled" versions of 360Chrome can be launched 1000s of times over the course of an entire MONTH and so long as you do not visit any web sites, then NOTHING TALKS TO GOOGLE. I am HUGE into the belief that a web browser should NEVER make ANY network traffic just to launch and close 1000s of times over a month. I've personally only witnessed ONE mozilla fork meet this critera, but I forget the name of it offhand. This HOSTED APP *will* bring in a GOOGLE COOKIE. But it might take one hour or it might take one week.

Just be cautious is all I'm saying. That "crap" just LISTED as HOSTED APP DATA is a PERMANENT LINE OF COMMUNICATION between your browser and Google! Monitor your DNS traffic dilegently. That "crap" is SNEAKY about how OFTEN that line of communication is OPENED/USED. Do not be fooled into thinking there is no communication just because your log didn't show any "at launch", "at exit", or "once per hour". I know "where" it is located in 360Chrome [I disable in "ungoogled" but keep in "regular"], but no, I do not know (nor care) where it is located in Supermium and Thorium. Their developers both seem to claim they are incorporating "ungoogled" code but they keep missing this most OBVIOUS permanent line of communication. It's a 15-second "test" to see for one's self if this HOSTED APP DATA is present or not. If it is present, then you are communicating with Google! If it is NOT present, then you have a TRULY *UNGOOGLED* web browser. It's up to every user to decide for themself if that is "important" or not.

No "link" required. I'm at work so I can only show via screencap from OFFICIAL Chrome v122 (I cannot run Ungoogled, Thorium, or Supermium here at work). The "test" for TRULY *UNGOOGLED* is to CLEAR YOUR CACHE !!! And if you see THIS *after* clearing your cache, THEN YOU ARE NOT "UNGOOGLED".

Also, I should add, I do NOT support DISABLING client hints !!! I prefer, and recommend to all, to SPOOF THEM INSTEAD. Do not DISABLE them, but SPOOF them to the most recent version of CHROME to best blend in with the crowd. You SHOOT YOURSELF in the "privacy-conscious foot" to DISABLE them. Been over this 100 times. Not sure why it's not SINKING IN to some of you folks, lol.

I've discussed that elsewhere on the forum. Because my bank account only works in v122, v123, and v124. I cannot use v121 and older. I cannot use v125 and newer. I never could figure out exactly why these three, and ONLY these three, work for my bank account. Password submission fails on EVERYTHING outside of these THREE versions. I speak strictly for UNGOOGLED ONLY. I cannot (and will not) use any Chrome Fork that is not 100% UNGOOGLED. Supermium and Thorium both FAIL a 100% UNGOOGLED test. I'm still OPTIMISTIC that hopefully THORIUM will eventually become 100% UNGOOGLED. I am NOT as optimistic on Supermium (the developer himself has stated that some Google features will not be removed). All I can do is sit back and watch and cross my fingers that by the time my bank no longer works with v122 (at which point I can realistically assume that v123 and v124 will also NO LONGER work) that THORIUM v150 (or wherever we are at at that time) WILL work. If not, then I will have to do my own browser again. Like I had to with 360Chrome when faced with that the last time around.

Nor should they, in my honest opinion. How many of these regular mortal "resist change", of any kind? How many of these regular mortal are fine with "change" - but resist any form of "lack of control" in how that "change" unfolds? ie, elevated sense of self-worth? How many of these regular mortal are fine with "change" - but despise the "transition" phase? Et cetera... Whether we like to "witness" all of these "transitions", one must admit that if we let the "regular mortal" have TOO MUCH SAY, then we'd all be running Win98SE and driving cars without seat belts. (Which I'm okay with, I own two cars that DO NOT HAVE SEAT BELTS and it's actually ILLEGAL [in my state of the US] for "the law" to force me to install them in a car that did not come with them from the factory!)

Fair enough. Chromium is not exclusively coded by Google employees. But yes, "most" developers are Google employees. I cannot find if that is 51% of developers work for Google. Or if it is 99% of developers work for Google. I admit that I've always ASSUMED it to be closer to the 51% side of the spectrum. But I have no data to back up that assumption. Nor any data to suggest 99%.

Technically not true. What most people don't realize is that Chrome (ie, "Google") is not "first". Chrome is based from Chromium, so these UI changes were implemented by CHROMIUM (open-source project NOT affiliated wit Google), then Google just pushed them to the public. More often than not, the CHROMIUM developers get enough "feedback" and then REVERT these types of changes by adding flags that Chrome (ie, "Google") does not add. There would be no Chrome if Chromium did not exist first. But yeah, "semantics".

Is there at least a "suspend network activity" setting, like uBO (and forks of uBO)?

This is the part that caught my eye - "More WebUI stuff is reverted to its pre-Chrome 2023 appearance." I have not tested the "Th24/M128" version yet. I have been "stuck" at Chromium v122 out of immense dislike over the changes upstream made with the UI that most forkers just followed the Lead Lemming.

Total YUCK on the newest Sleipnir! Been away from it for several years. Wow! Total YUCK.

GreenBrowser, Sleipnir, and SlimBrowser used to all be very good to me. I actually still use GreenBrowser, but more for debug purposes when tracking down web site issues spanning different browser engines.

Depends on much experience you have with nLite. Once you get a validated process working, it will become hours instead of days. The first "several" trial-and-error iterations will be days, agreed. That's why you always always always test in a VM first.

Generally speaking, NO, something removed by nLite requires re-doing the nLite'd media and reinstalling. It's not impossible to restore. But you'll spend 4 days trying to figure out "how" when it only takes 3 to 5 hours to archive everything, re-do the nLite'd media, and reinstall. As a gigantic fan of nLite'd, vLite'd, NTLite'd, and WinReducerEX'd installations, Rule #1 is this - always test in a VM.

I never liked having the flags, but removing them now may be pointless, we all already know where the frequent visitors are from. There are some users here that don't have flags even when the flag "feature" is working. I think it's just because they're from a country not included in the "list of flags".

You may find that this will not "play well" with any web site that has dropdown-menu navigation sections.