Real Ungoogled and Brave ported to OS below Windows 10, does someone work on it?

[Karla Sleutel]

Please post if you aware of such projects, just to clarify, only real versions of these browsers are of interest.

Thanks.

[jumper]

Ported is Knock-off, so no preference.

 

Edited May 23 by jumper

[D.Draker]

10 hours ago, jumper said:

Ported is Knock-off, so no preference.

 

Well, I tend to disagree, if it's ported without the bloat adding, without spyware, I mean, only its API changed, why it's a knock-off?

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I myself have no clue just how to define "ported" versus "knock-off".

To me, NETSCAPE NAVIGATOR was not the "first" web browser (a program called "WorldWideWeb" was!) but it WAS the first for PUBLIC USE.

EVERYTHING ever since is a "knock-off" of NETSCAPE NAVIGATOR.

[Karla Sleutel]

I was only referring to the particular browsers I mentioned, not knock-offs in general. It's clearly indicated in the topic title.

[jumper]

No, it's not. The poll is completely unrelated to the title and top post and should be removed or moved to a separate thread.

 

[Mathwiz]

I understood the term to refer to "name-brand" or "well-known" browsers (Firefox,Chromium/Chrome/Edge,IE) vs. Mozilla/Chromium forks intended to remove possibly unwanted features (Ungoogled Chromium) and/or to extend support to older OSes (R3dfox,Supermium/Thorium)

That makes it a bit of a judgement call. Is Brave a "name-brand" browser, or is it a "knock-off" of Chromium? The OP seems to consider it name-brand, but others may differ.

Maybe others are reading it differently. So far I'm the only one who's voted in favor of "knock-offs."

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I seldom, if ever, vote on any of these types of polls.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Technically, Chrome itself is a "port" or a "fork" or a "knock-off" !!!    I'm still very much UNCLEAR of the DEFINITION of each.

Without UPSTREAM CHROMIUM, Chrome itself would not exist.

[Mathwiz]

True enough. As I said, it's a judgement call.

But I don't think we need to get lost in the weeds of exactly what constitutes a "knock-off." From the thread title it's clear to me that the OP is looking for a recent version of Ungoogled Chromium and/or Brave ported to Windows <10. I suspect many other MSFN members are looking for the same.

In theory it doesn't sound hard to do. Start with, say, Supermium/Thorium source, apply the Ungoogled Chromium patches, and build. But you have to know how to build Chromium, what to do if it doesn't compile or doesn't work - and of course you need compilers that can target your desired OS version and hardware to run them on.

Not many of us have the needed hardware, software, and expertise - not to mention interest in tackling the project. I know I don't. I suspect that's why it hasn't been done yet.

[66cats]

5 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Without UPSTREAM CHROMIUM, Chrome itself would not exist.

Are you sure? "Google Chrome debuted in September 2008, and along with its release, the Chromium source code was also made available, allowing builds to be constructed from it."--wikipee 

[UCyborg]

2 hours ago, Mathwiz said:

Not many of us have the needed hardware, software, and expertise - not to mention interest in tackling the project. I know I don't. I suspect that's why it hasn't been done yet.

You forgot "a lot of time", assuming keeping it updated is desired.

Isn't it ironic that most folks that would desire such fork aren't programmers? Also, I've always had an impression that MSFN crowd underestimates how much it takes to support legacy technology.

[Mathwiz]

9 minutes ago, UCyborg said:

Isn't it ironic that most folks that would desire such fork aren't programmers?

Probably because if you're a Windows programmer, then you're probably running Windows 11, or at least 10, anyhow; so you see no need for one. Folks like @roytam1 who have modern equipment but still care about supporting older OSes are a rare breed.

15 minutes ago, UCyborg said:

I've always had an impression that MSFN crowd underestimates how much it takes to support legacy technology.

You're right - but it's because the software we're trying to backport was changed to require the latest OS versions, often intentionally. No one is forcing Google or Mozilla to call functions only available in Win 10+. For that matter, no one is forcing MCP to call functions only available in Win 7+. That was a choice they all made.

I realize that said choice was often made implicitly, by moving to the latest (C/Rust/whatever) compilers, which by default, target the latest OSes. But it was still a choice to move to the latest compilers, and it was also a choice not to configure them to support older OSes.

This is often done in the name of "performance," but (as with some hardware improvements like AVX) the performance gains are minimal - unless the idea is to force users to buy new hardware to run the new OS required to run the latest browsers. Of course your browser will run faster if you make all your users go out and buy new PCs!

[UCyborg]

25 minutes ago, Mathwiz said:

You're right - but it's because the software we're trying to backport was changed to require the latest OS versions

At my workplace, they say everything will be great when transition to new .NET is done. We'll be able to have everything then.

Except happy customers, probably, they're never happy!

47 minutes ago, Mathwiz said:

This is often done in the name of "performance," but (as with some hardware improvements like AVX) the performance gains are minimal

That AVX example with Moonchild crew's programs is a rather odd one. Does average MSFNer even know a wide enough spectrum of software to be able to make proper judgement?

[NotHereToPlayGames]

5 hours ago, 66cats said:

Are you sure?

Yes.  At least that has been my understanding "from the beginning".

https://phoenixts.com/blog/history-chrome-for-those-who-dont-know/

https://www.howtogeek.com/202825/whats-the-difference-between-chromium-and-chrome/

Edited May 26 by NotHereToPlayGames