3 ms·

As I mentioned, Flash is bundled and is closed source, and the print preview functionality as well. There is also the closed-source PDF viewer (which is related

by azakai 15y ago

As I mentioned, Flash is bundled and is closed source, and the print preview functionality as well. There is also the closed-source PDF viewer (which is related to the print preview functionality in some way). And some audio codecs are present in Chrome but not Chromium, but I do not know if they are closed source or not (perhaps they are missing for other reasons). Those are the main things we know about. The bigger issue, though, is that by definition a closed-source application can contain any amount of code that you don't know about. If the closed-source blobs were entirely separate this would not be an issue. If, for example, I could build Chromium from source myself and copy over a few clearly-defined blobs, and I would get something identical to Chrome, that would be one way to separate them. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that is not the case here (if it is, I am honestly curious to see this - please explain how I can do that). Side note: I'm kind of disappointed to see I'm being modded down for saying things that are true. Has fanboyism reached even hacker news, that anyone saying something against their favorite product - even something true - is modded down? Edit: And now I'm being called a troll, ah well. I hope it's obvious that I am 100% sincere in my opinions here, and the fact that I have already conceded the point to wmf should make it perfectly clear no trolling was going on from my side. (wmf says it's an oversimplification, I prefer to say it's an inaccuracy, but they both mean basically the same thing and I am fine with using either term.)

mkr-hn 15y ago
I'm just glancing at the Chrome directory on Windows, but I see these: gcswf32.dll (flash), pdf.dll Which tells me the functionality for Flash and PDF viewing are handled externally. That also tells me Google is intentionally keeping these separate, so the other things are probably external too.
- azakai 15y ago
  That isn't strong evidence either way (I am sure for example that closed source browsers have separate modules for various closed source things). The question is whether the reset of the code is identical or not to Chromium. I suggested one way before to get a clear answer, but to my knowledge there is simply no way to know.
  - mkr-hn 15y ago
    So what you're saying is that you lack the basis to claim Chrome, the browser and not the components that ship next to it, is closed source.
    - azakai 15y ago
      No. Chrome is shipped by Google in binary form, and without instructions for generating it in its entirety from source. That, by definition, is not open source. It contains parts that are, otherwise, known to be open source. The same is true for Safari and Opera. It contains many more such parts than those browsers, to be sure, but it is still not fully open source.
      - mkr-hn 15y ago
        The source, as best as anyone can tell, is Chromium. It's just a branding difference until you demonstrate that Chrome != Chromium + blobs. The blog post and everything Google says indicates that Chrome is just Chromium rebadged and shipped with some stuff. You're free to go and (try to) disprove this by compiling Chromium so you can compare it with Chrome.
        azakai 15y ago
        If Google claims Chrome is open source, the burden of proof is on Google. I have not even seen Google say that Chrome is identical to Chromium except for some DLLs, which is what you appear to believe. Or have I missed that? If so, please link me to it.
        mkr-hn 15y ago
        It appears to be open source by their standards. What is there to prove? Disprove it by your standard and present the evidence. Then realize there's no point in trying to argue "facts" when each faction has its own.
        15y ago
wmf 15y ago
You're being voted down by moderates, not fanboys. We know that Chrome has proprietary parts, so pointing it out is pedantic and distracting, not informative. Rather than complain, we give Google credit for the 99% of Chrome's code that is open source.
- azakai 15y ago
  > We know that Chrome has proprietary parts, so pointing it out is pedantic and distracting, not informative. I honestly don't see how it is pedantic or distracting. But I am glad we agree on the facts. > Rather than complain, we give Google credit for the 99% of Chrome's code that is open source. That supports my point, I think. I am being modded down in part because people want to praise Google for that 99%, just as you said now. However, that 99% - which is well and good - does not change that Google erred here (and elsewhere) about calling Chrome open source. You are overlooking that because you like Google overall. But you don't need to always support or always berate Google. You should support it when it does good - which it often does - and berate it when it does bad - which it did right here.
  - mkr-hn 15y ago
    You're doing that thing where you challenge the character and motives of people who disagree with you. It's irritating.
    - azakai 15y ago
      First, I apologize if I am irritating in any way. I don't intend to be, but I am told that sometimes I tend to focus too much on factual stuff and too little on how other people react to what I am saying. So, sorry about that if it is the case here. As to this specific thing - I did not intend to challenge character or motive. My point was that by saying "Rather than complain, we give Google credit for the 99% of Chrome's code that is open source", it is clear that Google is being given a pass on mistakes because of the other good things it does. There is a false choice implied in that quote - as if we must either like Google and praise it, or dislike Google and berate it. Instead, we should either praise or berate Google depending on what it actually does. And right here, it did do something wrong. I hope that clarifies what I was trying to say before.

by azakai 15y ago

mkr-hn 15y ago

I'm just glancing at the Chrome directory on Windows, but I see these: gcswf32.dll (flash), pdf.dll Which tells me the functionality for Flash and PDF viewing are handled externally. That also tells me Google is intentionally keeping these separate, so the other things are probably external too.

azakai 15y ago
That isn't strong evidence either way (I am sure for example that closed source browsers have separate modules for various closed source things). The question is whether the reset of the code is identical or not to Chromium. I suggested one way before to get a clear answer, but to my knowledge there is simply no way to know.
- mkr-hn 15y ago
  So what you're saying is that you lack the basis to claim Chrome, the browser and not the components that ship next to it, is closed source.
  - azakai 15y ago
    No. Chrome is shipped by Google in binary form, and without instructions for generating it in its entirety from source. That, by definition, is not open source. It contains parts that are, otherwise, known to be open source. The same is true for Safari and Opera. It contains many more such parts than those browsers, to be sure, but it is still not fully open source.
    - mkr-hn 15y ago
      The source, as best as anyone can tell, is Chromium. It's just a branding difference until you demonstrate that Chrome != Chromium + blobs. The blog post and everything Google says indicates that Chrome is just Chromium rebadged and shipped with some stuff. You're free to go and (try to) disprove this by compiling Chromium so you can compare it with Chrome.
      - azakai 15y ago
        If Google claims Chrome is open source, the burden of proof is on Google. I have not even seen Google say that Chrome is identical to Chromium except for some DLLs, which is what you appear to believe. Or have I missed that? If so, please link me to it.
        mkr-hn 15y ago
        It appears to be open source by their standards. What is there to prove? Disprove it by your standard and present the evidence. Then realize there's no point in trying to argue "facts" when each faction has its own.
        15y ago

wmf 15y ago

You're being voted down by moderates, not fanboys. We know that Chrome has proprietary parts, so pointing it out is pedantic and distracting, not informative. Rather than complain, we give Google credit for the 99% of Chrome's code that is open source.

azakai 15y ago
> We know that Chrome has proprietary parts, so pointing it out is pedantic and distracting, not informative. I honestly don't see how it is pedantic or distracting. But I am glad we agree on the facts. > Rather than complain, we give Google credit for the 99% of Chrome's code that is open source. That supports my point, I think. I am being modded down in part because people want to praise Google for that 99%, just as you said now. However, that 99% - which is well and good - does not change that Google erred here (and elsewhere) about calling Chrome open source. You are overlooking that because you like Google overall. But you don't need to always support or always berate Google. You should support it when it does good - which it often does - and berate it when it does bad - which it did right here.
- mkr-hn 15y ago
  You're doing that thing where you challenge the character and motives of people who disagree with you. It's irritating.
  - azakai 15y ago
    First, I apologize if I am irritating in any way. I don't intend to be, but I am told that sometimes I tend to focus too much on factual stuff and too little on how other people react to what I am saying. So, sorry about that if it is the case here. As to this specific thing - I did not intend to challenge character or motive. My point was that by saying "Rather than complain, we give Google credit for the 99% of Chrome's code that is open source", it is clear that Google is being given a pass on mistakes because of the other good things it does. There is a false choice implied in that quote - as if we must either like Google and praise it, or dislike Google and berate it. Instead, we should either praise or berate Google depending on what it actually does. And right here, it did do something wrong. I hope that clarifies what I was trying to say before.