search

kiwibrowser / src.next

Source-code for Kiwi Next, a Kiwi Browser auto-rebased with latest Chromium
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
2.21k stars 285 forks source link

Update Kiwi Browser v130.0.6686.0 or v128.0.6613.114??? #1180

Open Don1250 opened 2 weeks ago

Don1250 commented 2 weeks ago

can you update Kiwi Browser like Chromium v130.0.6686.0 or Google Chrome v128.0.6613.114???

ghost commented 2 weeks ago

Next update should be released soon https://github.com/kiwibrowser/src.next/issues/1121#issuecomment-2285815532 Will be probably Chromium 128.0.6613.99, Chromium 130 is not a stable Version, the latest is 128.0.6613.99.

Don1250 commented 2 weeks ago

ok

Don1250 commented 2 weeks ago

or maybe Kiwi Browser (Dev Version) is Suitable on Chrome Dev v130.0.6683.0 (668300038) or not i think???

ayaen commented 1 week ago

dont want to be an a-hole but, seriously, whats the security posturing here?

ayaen commented 1 week ago

okay my bad, its src.next so great! good luck with this!

Rickyrvxlovet commented 1 week ago

or maybe Kiwi Browser (Dev Version) is Suitable on Chrome Dev v130.0.6683.0 (668300038) or not i think???

Where is this so called DEV version?

ayaen commented 1 week ago

porting code changes to keep up with upstream chromium is no mean feat so you will have to wait longer, i suppose

Don1250 commented 1 week ago

how longer wait of it??? it start to get outdate just tell me is this 1 men projects or team projects???

SyCoREAPER commented 1 week ago

Kiwi shouldn't be anyone's daily driver.

I understand that the devs have personal lives, it takes time and is according to them difficult to merge. I'm not disputing that.

However, 3 months with no updates and now the new update still being on 128 is a security risk and not one worth taking.

I don't know the politics behind the scenes whether its if they won't get more developers or if they can't find more. If they had the source open like they did the original repository , the community could pitch in or at least contribute in some way. If the dev is worried someone will take the proprietary bits like extensions for example, then leave that out of the code publicly and let them work on that part exclusively. But it's a s hame because this is a one of a kind browser.

Nothing comparable that isn't getting the attention it deserves**. This straight up competes and beats Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Vivaldi and any forks out there. If releases were more frequent, this browser would be a threat to the others on the market. If there were regular releases I'd even pay for this browser.

**Again I say that with respect to what I said in the beginning about personal lives of the devs being priority and that this is being provided to us for free. I'm not complaining, just clarifying my stance.

Rusenche commented 6 days ago

@Don1250 commented 3 days ago how longer wait of it??? it start to get outdate just tell me is this 1 men projects or team projects???

You are obviously serious.

I use Kiwi browser v.98.0.4786.66 without any worries.

This mantra that as soon as a new Chromium version comes out you have to install it and have the internal fear that if you don't you will be a victim is creating personal mental problems.

ayaen commented 6 days ago

I think theres a difference between feeling angry/entitled and worried. if it was some simple program like ls or cat, one could do away with updates maybe but a browser such as chromium based ones with myriad functionality/dependencies one need to be reasonably up to date or risk being a much more low hangin fruit for malicious websites.

SyCoREAPER commented 2 days ago

@Don1250 commented 3 days ago how longer wait of it??? it start to get outdate just tell me is this 1 men projects or team projects???

You are obviously serious.

I use Kiwi browser v.98.0.4786.66 without any worries.

This mantra that as soon as a new Chromium version comes out you have to install it and have the internal fear that if you don't you will be a victim is creating personal mental problems.

Was OPs post cocky and a-hole? Absolutely.

But your comment... Not just naive and cynical but entirely false and the number of major vulnerabilities fixed since 98.x.x.x. are countless. If a false sense of security works for you, you do you but don't spout nonsensical BS misinformation such as Chromium 98.x being safe and secure.

Rusenche commented 1 day ago

SyCoREAPER commented 2 days ago • edited Was OPs post cocky and a-hole? Absolutely.

But your comment... Not just naive and cynical but entirely false and the number of major vulnerabilities fixed since 98.x.x.x. are countless. If a false > sense of security works for you, you do you but don't spout nonsensical BS misinformation such as Chromium 98.x being safe and > secure.

Such thinking is harmful...

What does the version matter and is the version old as everything works fine?! Now you're going to dump the "vulnerabilities" bucket, but how many are "vulnerable" so far?! Has anyone seen a mass panic on some site that they are "vulnerable" because their browser is old?! Claiming "vulnerabilities" in old versions of browsers are absurd claims.

Where is the mass of millions or hundreds of thousands that are "vulnerable and/or infected with viruses and/or hacked" by hackers due to an old version being used?!...

SyCoREAPER commented 20 hours ago

Such thinking is harmful...

What does the version matter and is the version old as everything works fine?! Now you're going to dump the "vulnerabilities" bucket, but how many are "vulnerable" so far?! Has anyone seen a mass panic on some site that they are "vulnerable" because their browser is old?! Claiming "vulnerabilities" in old versions of browsers are absurd claims.

Where is the mass of millions or hundreds of thousands that are "vulnerable and/or infected with viruses and/or hacked" by hackers due to an old version being used?!...

What's harmful and even dangerous is spreading misinformation without understanding the wider implications of your statement.

If vulnerabilities were harmless they wouldn't be called vulnerabilities and there wouldn't be a need to patch them at all. Your thought process seems to be "since this hasn't affected me or only a subset of individuals could be affected it's not dangerous". That's wrong and simple-minded.

A browser is especially important as it keeps cashed, even if briefly, activity, data and personal information that if exploited opens the doors to infection or interception and suddenly you're a victim.

You going to tell me you've never gotten malware or or adware on ANY computer you've ever owned? BS if you say no (or play the Linux card, if you do I'll have a counter statement that destroys that). Why did you get infected and why was it able to infect the system without tedious cleanup? Because there was a vulnerability that was exploited.

Do you update your OS? Why? The updates don't matter according to you.

You're precisely the kind of person that says vaccines do nothing until they are in a hospital bed dying, crying, telling people that they were wrong and urging people to do the opposite of what they were originally spreading.

What you're spouting is nonsensical and entirely based on personal opinion based on YOU, not the security world as a whole or even outside a narrow minded view. You provide me one credible security expert's security paper/report that says security vulnerabilities (not a specific vulnerability, vulnerabilities as a whole shouldn't be patched and I'll publicly declare I was wrong in front of everyone here.

My guess is if you respond, you're going to deflect and not provide said expert report.

ayaen commented 13 hours ago

This is an issue tracker and not a place to chat, since the point has been made I think we should just stop. Every comment added probably sends notifications to repo owners and I dont think they need to be notified about our ranting and arguing.