4 ms·

It doesn't matter whether you can download the source for the devices you buy in the store. Not in the context of this discussion about vendor lock-in. You're u

by DCKing 12y ago

It doesn't matter whether you can download the source for the devices you buy in the store. Not in the context of this discussion about vendor lock-in. You're using a red herring. The point is: if you don't like devices on sale with Chrome, Chrome OS or Android, you can download the source code and make it run on your own devices. Google really doesn't mind at all if you do that. The point is: Google doesn't profit from "selling" Chrome, or profit from "selling" Android. It profits whenever Chrome is used, or it profits whenever Android is used (most of the time at least for both). Similarily, it profits whenever Firefox is used and whenever iOS is used (most of the time for both). Therefore, although Google likes that you use Chrome or Android to access their services, what it wants is just that you use their services regardless what platform you use. It has no reason for it to desire a complete lock-in because their products are just means to an end, not ends in themselves.

stephenr 12y ago
I was referring more to the fact that what Google says ("embrace the open web", "open source wins", etc) don't really mean shit. Chrome isn't open source, chromium is. What are the extra bits in chrome? My issue is not that google does what it does, my issue is the religious cult like status so many tech related people give google, in spite of their numerous and repeated attempts to control so many facts of the digital landscape
- DCKing 12y ago
  > my issue is the religious cult like status so many tech related people give google, in spite of their numerous and repeated attempts to control so many facts of the digital landscape "People are defending Google" => "They are giving Google a religious cult status" really? Come on, keep that attitude away from adult discussion.
  - stephenr 12y ago
    When the people are constantly defending an organisation that is becoming increasingly harmful to their own well being, what else is it but a cult?
    - VikingCoder 12y ago
      More than almost any corporation on the planet, Google has made my life better. I suspect the same is true for a lot of people. When people like you constantly attack an organization that is increasingly useful to everyone else's well being, what else is that but paranoia?
      - stephenr 12y ago
        So your logic is, that because you feel like they've made your life better, all the publicly available information about where they have done and are doing increasingly "evil" things, is all somehow the dreams of madmen? Also please remember this quote from the author of Catch-22: > Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you
- yohui 12y ago
  > Chrome isn't open source, chromium is. What are the extra bits in chrome? https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoogleChrome https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoo... Plus, if you're on Windows or Mac, the auto-updater for Chrome. The most significant differences are probably that Chrome has oit-of-the-box support for AAC, H.264, MP3, and Flash that Chromium does not have (by default).
  - stephenr 12y ago
    When the whole issue being discussed is about Google's control/power, and the potential for mis-use, and general mis-trust of Google, it seems a little odd to reference a google supplied document about the differences between the open source and commercial versions. If they are doing nefarious things (e.g. if they shipped something that benefited their own web properties and hurt others) they wouldn't exactly publicise that, now would they?

by DCKing 12y ago

stephenr 12y ago

I was referring more to the fact that what Google says ("embrace the open web", "open source wins", etc) don't really mean shit. Chrome isn't open source, chromium is. What are the extra bits in chrome? My issue is not that google does what it does, my issue is the religious cult like status so many tech related people give google, in spite of their numerous and repeated attempts to control so many facts of the digital landscape

DCKing 12y ago
> my issue is the religious cult like status so many tech related people give google, in spite of their numerous and repeated attempts to control so many facts of the digital landscape "People are defending Google" => "They are giving Google a religious cult status" really? Come on, keep that attitude away from adult discussion.
- stephenr 12y ago
  When the people are constantly defending an organisation that is becoming increasingly harmful to their own well being, what else is it but a cult?
  - VikingCoder 12y ago
    More than almost any corporation on the planet, Google has made my life better. I suspect the same is true for a lot of people. When people like you constantly attack an organization that is increasingly useful to everyone else's well being, what else is that but paranoia?
    - stephenr 12y ago
      So your logic is, that because you feel like they've made your life better, all the publicly available information about where they have done and are doing increasingly "evil" things, is all somehow the dreams of madmen? Also please remember this quote from the author of Catch-22: > Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you
yohui 12y ago
> Chrome isn't open source, chromium is. What are the extra bits in chrome? https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoogleChrome https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoo... Plus, if you're on Windows or Mac, the auto-updater for Chrome. The most significant differences are probably that Chrome has oit-of-the-box support for AAC, H.264, MP3, and Flash that Chromium does not have (by default).
- stephenr 12y ago
  When the whole issue being discussed is about Google's control/power, and the potential for mis-use, and general mis-trust of Google, it seems a little odd to reference a google supplied document about the differences between the open source and commercial versions. If they are doing nefarious things (e.g. if they shipped something that benefited their own web properties and hurt others) they wouldn't exactly publicise that, now would they?