GNOME's Epiphany Experiences A Facelift

[Teho]

A snooping feature is enabled by default. Saying it can be disabled does not make the feature, or having it enabled by default, ok.

The possibility for snooping is side product of "predictive searching" which itself is undoubtably a feature. You mistakenly expect your own values to be unversal but even if we consider having such feature on by default to be "unacceptable" then so what? How does it make the browser any worse when it's turned off? Should we let such irrelevant philosophical dissonance affect our choise of a browser? And maybe most importantly what does this have to do with the topic?

[Awesomeness]

Thanks the dear God that nether Chrome nor Firefox are owned by Gnome.

Not? Chrome/Chromium doesn't even have a cookie manager setting that let's it ask the user on every website how to treat cookies for that site.
OTOH Firefox does not have an option to treat all cookies as session cookies and whitelist only specific domains for permanent storage.

Both seem like GNOME's “We don't need option XY” attitude to me.

The only browser with a decent cookie manager I ever encountered was Camino for Mac…

Looks promising, but Epiphany lacks two must-have extensions:
2) elaborated AdBlocker

Well, then you'll be delighted to read this:
http://blogs.igalia.com/mario/2011/1...ys-ad-blocker/

[puntarenas]

Well, then you'll be delighted to read this:
http://blogs.igalia.com/mario/2011/1...ys-ad-blocker/

Indeed I am, thank you!

Seems now with Epiphany 3.4 there will only be one show-stopper left that keeps me away. I wonder why there isn't even a third party solution that aims for browser independent bookmark and password sync, not to mention that an open standardization would be even better and allow us to choose a cloud-service and web-storage provider ourselves.

[curaga]

The possibility for snooping is side product of "predictive searching" which itself is undoubtably a feature. You mistakenly expect your own values to be unversal but even if we consider having such feature on by default to be "unacceptable" then so what? How does it make the browser any worse when it's turned off?

Malfeatures tend to be herd animals. Where there's hard evidence of one, you're likely to find 10 others.

Should we let such irrelevant philosophical dissonance affect our choise of a browser?

You're welcome to use Chrome. I'm welcome not to, and to recommend against it.

And maybe most importantly what does this have to do with the topic?

It was a response to this:

You understand that Chromium is open source and it doesn't send any information to anyone as long as you don't use Google as search engine which then again does the same on any browser? Well not that matters as it has nothing to do with Webkit.

My highlight. I asked you to name one such browser other than Chrom*. Perhaps I misunderstood, and you meant searches intended for google?

I agree the Chrome track is offtopic for Epiphany. Then again, so what?

[Teho]

Malfeatures tend to be herd animals. Where there's hard evidence of one, you're likely to find 10 others.

That's the beaty of open source. We know that Chromium doesn't send any information if you disable the only feature that requires it to function.