5 ms·

Youtube and Twitch are the only reasons I keep Chrome around - I much rather supporting the work that Mozilla are doing with Firefox (ie a proper open source br

Youtube and Twitch are the only reasons I keep Chrome around - I much rather supporting the work that Mozilla are doing with Firefox (ie a proper open source browser) than Chrome.

omaranto 12y ago
Are you saying that the Flash plugin bundled with Chrome is better than the Flash plugin you can install for Firefox? If so, do you have any idea why?
- simcop2387 12y ago
  On linux it's because the NPAPI flash plugin hasn't been updated in a few years. It went Chrome/PPAPI a while back and firefox doesn't support it yet. I think it's supposed to get security fixes but performance issues are never going to get fixed in it.
  - giovannibajo1 12y ago
    Also, being on PPAPI means that it's fully sandboxed; add to that that google auto-updates it without nah screens and installer downloads, and you get a far higher level of security
- freehunter 12y ago
  On Linux, it is. The Flash plugin on Linux for Chrome is v16. The version for Linux Firefox is 11.2. Adobe stopped supporting Flash on Linux, so Google stepped up to the plate and started bundling Flash with Chrome and supporting it themselves. Flash does still work on Firefox, but at least on my install Click to Run was enabled by default for it (that might be a corporate setting though, I'm not sure". Regardless, yeah Flash on Firefox on Linux is several years behind.
matthewmacleod 12y ago
Out of interest, why is Firefox a 'proper' open-source browser while Chrome is not? Isn't Chrome pretty much just Chromium with a little bit of extra Google integration on top?
- gcp 12y ago
  On Android Chrome isn't open source at all. On Windows/Linux several key parts are closed source, that's quite a bit more "than a bit of Google integration".
  - bla2 12y ago
    What key part is closed-source on Windows/Linux?
    - JetSpiegel 12y ago
      Everything. It's only distributed as a binary.
      - bla2 12y ago
        What does this reply even mean? Of course it's distributed as a binary -- should regular users compile it themselves? Advanced users can compile chromium if they want; from what I understand it's virtually identical to the chrome binary.
        adwf 12y ago
        If the source code is not available and it's distributed as a binary, by definition it can't be open source. (Plus some might argue about OSS licensing too) Chromium may be OSS, but Chrome is not.
        JetSpiegel 12y ago
        Yes. Chrome is not Chromium, nor it Opera.
        bla2 12y ago
        That's what I'm asking: For which part of Chrome is the source code not available?
    - 12y ago
digikata 12y ago
I'm finding that Chrome hit sort of a decline from a personal peak in that current versions seem to be pigs on resource constrained systems, and has started to move backwards in terms of UI friendlyness (e.g. frequent requests for login to google accounts, rollout of more difficult user profile switching). IIRC the integrated flash plugin in Chrome is proprietary and at times it seems to be at the root of hanging processes or runaway resource consumption with Chrome. Ironically flash compatibility is one of the reasons I keep Chrome around - I've dropped flash plugins for all my other browsers... I'm hoping it's a local max/temporary decline for Chrome, but Firefox now feels like the lighter of the two browsers in my use.
- keyle 12y ago
  I've recently switched to Opera. It's ludicrous in my mind because it's Opera and I'm an older guy... history... but now it's webkit and it's essentially a polished version of webkit without the guest crapware of chrome. It has ublock too.
  - yuhong 12y ago
    What is funny is there are users that prefer the old Opera (not based on Chromium) too.
- zevyoura 12y ago
  To improve the new user profile switching, try enabling this flag: chrome://flags/#enable-fast-user-switching

Youtube and Twitch are the only reasons I keep Chrome around - I much rather supporting the work that Mozilla are doing with Firefox (ie a proper open source browser) than Chrome.

omaranto 12y ago

Are you saying that the Flash plugin bundled with Chrome is better than the Flash plugin you can install for Firefox? If so, do you have any idea why?

simcop2387 12y ago
On linux it's because the NPAPI flash plugin hasn't been updated in a few years. It went Chrome/PPAPI a while back and firefox doesn't support it yet. I think it's supposed to get security fixes but performance issues are never going to get fixed in it.
- giovannibajo1 12y ago
  Also, being on PPAPI means that it's fully sandboxed; add to that that google auto-updates it without nah screens and installer downloads, and you get a far higher level of security
freehunter 12y ago
On Linux, it is. The Flash plugin on Linux for Chrome is v16. The version for Linux Firefox is 11.2. Adobe stopped supporting Flash on Linux, so Google stepped up to the plate and started bundling Flash with Chrome and supporting it themselves. Flash does still work on Firefox, but at least on my install Click to Run was enabled by default for it (that might be a corporate setting though, I'm not sure". Regardless, yeah Flash on Firefox on Linux is several years behind.

matthewmacleod 12y ago

Out of interest, why is Firefox a 'proper' open-source browser while Chrome is not? Isn't Chrome pretty much just Chromium with a little bit of extra Google integration on top?

gcp 12y ago
On Android Chrome isn't open source at all. On Windows/Linux several key parts are closed source, that's quite a bit more "than a bit of Google integration".
- bla2 12y ago
  What key part is closed-source on Windows/Linux?
  - JetSpiegel 12y ago
    Everything. It's only distributed as a binary.
    - bla2 12y ago
      What does this reply even mean? Of course it's distributed as a binary -- should regular users compile it themselves? Advanced users can compile chromium if they want; from what I understand it's virtually identical to the chrome binary.
      - adwf 12y ago
        If the source code is not available and it's distributed as a binary, by definition it can't be open source. (Plus some might argue about OSS licensing too) Chromium may be OSS, but Chrome is not.
        JetSpiegel 12y ago
        Yes. Chrome is not Chromium, nor it Opera.
        bla2 12y ago
        That's what I'm asking: For which part of Chrome is the source code not available?
  - 12y ago

digikata 12y ago

I'm finding that Chrome hit sort of a decline from a personal peak in that current versions seem to be pigs on resource constrained systems, and has started to move backwards in terms of UI friendlyness (e.g. frequent requests for login to google accounts, rollout of more difficult user profile switching). IIRC the integrated flash plugin in Chrome is proprietary and at times it seems to be at the root of hanging processes or runaway resource consumption with Chrome. Ironically flash compatibility is one of the reasons I keep Chrome around - I've dropped flash plugins for all my other browsers... I'm hoping it's a local max/temporary decline for Chrome, but Firefox now feels like the lighter of the two browsers in my use.

keyle 12y ago
I've recently switched to Opera. It's ludicrous in my mind because it's Opera and I'm an older guy... history... but now it's webkit and it's essentially a polished version of webkit without the guest crapware of chrome. It has ublock too.
- yuhong 12y ago
  What is funny is there are users that prefer the old Opera (not based on Chromium) too.
zevyoura 12y ago
To improve the new user profile switching, try enabling this flag: chrome://flags/#enable-fast-user-switching