4 ms·

That would be great, if Chrome was actually open source, and if the Chromium and Chrome projects weren't run by a company with perverse incentives (see: Manifes

• phendrenad2 3y ago
  That's just splitting hairs. Chrome is not holding back features from Chromium, so Chromium has everything that Chrome has. The only things it's missing are things that literally don't matter to Chromium users (like google sync, what are you going to do, make your own google corporation?) or things that literally can't be open-sourced (non-free codecs). The point here is that open-source "won" because nobody is trying to push features on the W3 Consortium without providing a reference implementation that is also the live, production code in the flagship browser of the largest browser company.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • Closi 3y ago
    Well the closed source bit is that you also cannot reproduce the binary yourself (so we don't actually know if there is other code in Chrome), and Chrome presumably adds a load of (non open-source) code around sending your browsing data and history to Google servers. The open source version also doesn't include any way to do automatic updates, sync with your google account, or have access to the extensions store. None of this is inherent to the open source version, but presumably it benefits Google to push their closed-source version which includes all their secret-tracking-sauce and allows them to avoid people forking the project entirely to remove ads. Firefox manages to support all different video types while having reproducible builds (see: OpenH264) :)
    • phendrenad2 3y ago
      > cannot reproduce the binary yourself Don't need to, I'm not using Chrome > sync with your google account Don't need to, I don't have a Google account > or have access to the extensions store The store that will soon ban adblockers..? Also, Firefox can't access the Chrome store either My point is you can't find fault with Chromium without conflating it with Chrome