macOS Packaging for Ungoogled-Chromium

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

A new macOS packaging effort for Ungoogled Chromium — a version of Chromium with Google services and telemetry stripped out — is prompting comparisons with simply using Firefox, Safari, Brave, or stock Chrome. Commenters debate trade-offs between privacy, security, web‑standards support, and ecosystem dominance, with some favoring independent or de‑Google‑d Chromium forks and others arguing that supporting non‑Chromium engines like Firefox or Safari is more important to avoid a Chrome monoculture. Practical concerns also surface around trusting community-built binaries, Apple code-signing and notarization requirements, and the feasibility of reproducible builds and CI-based distribution.

Project purpose and macOS packaging

  • Ungoogled Chromium aims to keep Chromium’s modern engine while striping Google integrations, telemetry, and Google-centric defaults.
  • The linked macOS repo is specifically for packaging and notarizing macOS builds, not the core project itself.
  • Some see this as redundant with the main repo; others note notarization and Apple-specific packaging as the practical value.

Chrome, Chromium, and “ungoogled” variants

  • Distinction outlined:
    • Chrome: official Google build, includes closed components and Google services.
    • Chromium: open-source core, but still developed in Google-controlled repos and includes Google-friendly behavior.
    • Ungoogled Chromium: a fork that removes or disables Google services, tracking, and defaults.
  • “Ungoogled Chrome” is called a contradiction, since only Google can ship “Chrome.”

Comparisons with other browsers

  • Some argue it’s simpler and safer to just use Firefox or Safari, especially with uBlock Origin and Manifest V2 support on Firefox.
  • Counterpoints:
    • Chrome/Chromium have better site compatibility, video handling, profiles, and PDF output for some workflows.
    • Safari is praised for speed, stability, integration, and low “spyware” feel, but criticized as “behind” on various web APIs and only on Apple platforms.
    • Others argue Safari intentionally avoids many Chrome-only APIs and is not analogous to IE; Chrome is framed as the real “new IE” due to market dominance.
  • Brave is suggested but criticized for its ad/crypto business model, affiliate link insertion, and unwanted VPN installs.
  • Alternatives mentioned: LibreWolf, Tor Browser, Orion, WebKit-based Linux browsers, and Playwright’s Chromium builds.

Web standards, monoculture, and philosophy

  • Disagreement over whether Safari’s missing APIs mean it’s “behind” or simply resisting Google-driven feature creep.
  • Several comments stress that a Chrome monoculture is dangerous; using non-Chromium engines (Firefox, Safari) helps preserve diversity.
  • Others argue even a de-Googled Chromium fork is valuable as a proof that Chromium can exist with minimal Google influence.

Build, trust, and security considerations

  • Official ungoogled binaries are often community-built and non-reproducible; authenticity cannot be guaranteed, which worries some.
  • GitHub Actions and artifact attestation are discussed as partial solutions, but macOS code signing costs, policy overhead, and resource needs are obstacles.