10 ms·

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 int

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?
  - teraflop 12y ago
    Maybe "key part" is overstating it a bit, but the auto-update, crash reporting and usage tracking systems are all closed-source, as are the Flash plugin and some non-free audio/video codecs that are bundled with Chrome. https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoogleChrome https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoo...
    - bla2 12y ago
      I think the auto-update, crash reporting and usage tracking code as well as the codecs are open source, they're just not compiled in by default in chromium builds.
MichaelGG 12y ago
Are you not answering your own question? The "extra" little bit of Google-specific code tries to tie-in the web to Google.
NeutronBoy 12y ago
Chrome is open source in the same way Android is open source - built on open source components, with some proprietary sprinkles on top, but good luck having any say in the development of Chrome or Android, it's pretty much Google's way or the highway. With Mozilla, all discussions are open, choices are justified, and literally anyone (assuming your reasoning and technical abilities are sound) can contribute. (I'll note that I don't actively contribute much to Mozilla, but if nobody uses Firefox then it's not going to keep getting better).
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  Open source and open development model are two different things (the latter almost always includes the former, but the former may or may not use the latter.)
- lmm 12y ago
  Mozilla is still feeling the effects of poor choices made by Netscape. If you want a real open source browser, try Konqueror - with (IIRC) <1/3 as many developers as Mozilla they wrote a complete open source browser from the ground up, with a rendering engine so good that Apple and Google adopted it to build their browsers on top of.
UweSchmidt 12y ago
Beyond open-sourceness it is also worth noting that while all browsers are behaving well on the internet right now (ever since Microsoft failed with the IE monopoly), Mozilla just does not have the permanent lingering need to make a profit, collect user information or to use their browser strategically in any way. Occasionally there are already Chrome-only websites, there is a Chrome web store that could potentially become a gatekeeper for software similar to what Apple is doing in the iOS ecosystem. I'm using Firefox even if that means that I don't get some cutting edge feature that I don't really need until a few weeks later. Hope that makes sense.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
zanny 12y ago
Well Chrome is not open source at all, all that Google integration is proprietary. Chromium is fine, and I use it next to FF all day every day. I have never tried committing to it so I have no idea, but the general mindshare seems to be Chromium contributions are Google dominated.
bzbarsky 12y ago
Last I checked, the bits of Chrome that aren't in Chromium are: 1) PDF viewer. 2) Flash. 3) Some audio/video codec support (e.g. Chromium has no support for MP3, AAC, H.264, or the MP4 container format; see <http://www.chromium.org/audio-video> http://www.chromium.org/audio-video>). 4) Crash reporting, metrics, that sort of thing. #1 and #2 are certainly closed-source. I can't speak to #3. [EDIT: as surrealize points out, #1 is no longer closed-source.] From an end-user perspective, there's a significant difference between "browser that will play the music and the videos and show me the PDFs" and "browser that will not do those things". Chromium, while open source, is really not a viable end-user browser on today's internet.
- surrealize 12y ago
  It looks like they open-sourced the PDF viewer: http://www.infoq.com/news/2014/06/google-chrome-pdf-engine-free http://www.infoq.com/news/2014/06/google-chrome-pdf-engine-f...
  - bzbarsky 12y ago
    Oh, I'd missed that happening. Thank you for pointing that out!
- nsgi 12y ago
  Also, Widevine.
- mod 12y ago
  > From an end-user perspective, there's a significant difference between "browser that will play the music and the videos and show me the PDFs" and "browser that will not do those things". Chromium, while open source, is really not a viable end-user browser on today's internet. I don't think so, because really it's a difference between "will show the pdf..." and "will launch a program to show the pdf." As a full time Chromium user, I've had frustrations twice--once trying to figure out why Netflix didn't work after I had heard it "now worked on linux," and the other with an app called mightytext that was doing a very stupid redirect loop forever in Chromium, but not Chrome. That's over the course of a year or so.

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?
- teraflop 12y ago
  Maybe "key part" is overstating it a bit, but the auto-update, crash reporting and usage tracking systems are all closed-source, as are the Flash plugin and some non-free audio/video codecs that are bundled with Chrome. https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoogleChrome https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoo...
  - bla2 12y ago
    I think the auto-update, crash reporting and usage tracking code as well as the codecs are open source, they're just not compiled in by default in chromium builds.

MichaelGG 12y ago

Are you not answering your own question? The "extra" little bit of Google-specific code tries to tie-in the web to Google.

NeutronBoy 12y ago

Chrome is open source in the same way Android is open source - built on open source components, with some proprietary sprinkles on top, but good luck having any say in the development of Chrome or Android, it's pretty much Google's way or the highway. With Mozilla, all discussions are open, choices are justified, and literally anyone (assuming your reasoning and technical abilities are sound) can contribute. (I'll note that I don't actively contribute much to Mozilla, but if nobody uses Firefox then it's not going to keep getting better).

dragonwriter 12y ago
Open source and open development model are two different things (the latter almost always includes the former, but the former may or may not use the latter.)
lmm 12y ago
Mozilla is still feeling the effects of poor choices made by Netscape. If you want a real open source browser, try Konqueror - with (IIRC) <1/3 as many developers as Mozilla they wrote a complete open source browser from the ground up, with a rendering engine so good that Apple and Google adopted it to build their browsers on top of.

UweSchmidt 12y ago

Beyond open-sourceness it is also worth noting that while all browsers are behaving well on the internet right now (ever since Microsoft failed with the IE monopoly), Mozilla just does not have the permanent lingering need to make a profit, collect user information or to use their browser strategically in any way. Occasionally there are already Chrome-only websites, there is a Chrome web store that could potentially become a gatekeeper for software similar to what Apple is doing in the iOS ecosystem. I'm using Firefox even if that means that I don't get some cutting edge feature that I don't really need until a few weeks later. Hope that makes sense.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

zanny 12y ago

Well Chrome is not open source at all, all that Google integration is proprietary. Chromium is fine, and I use it next to FF all day every day. I have never tried committing to it so I have no idea, but the general mindshare seems to be Chromium contributions are Google dominated.

bzbarsky 12y ago

Last I checked, the bits of Chrome that aren't in Chromium are: 1) PDF viewer. 2) Flash. 3) Some audio/video codec support (e.g. Chromium has no support for MP3, AAC, H.264, or the MP4 container format; see <http://www.chromium.org/audio-video> http://www.chromium.org/audio-video>). 4) Crash reporting, metrics, that sort of thing. #1 and #2 are certainly closed-source. I can't speak to #3. [EDIT: as surrealize points out, #1 is no longer closed-source.] From an end-user perspective, there's a significant difference between "browser that will play the music and the videos and show me the PDFs" and "browser that will not do those things". Chromium, while open source, is really not a viable end-user browser on today's internet.

surrealize 12y ago
It looks like they open-sourced the PDF viewer: http://www.infoq.com/news/2014/06/google-chrome-pdf-engine-free http://www.infoq.com/news/2014/06/google-chrome-pdf-engine-f...
- bzbarsky 12y ago
  Oh, I'd missed that happening. Thank you for pointing that out!
nsgi 12y ago
Also, Widevine.
mod 12y ago
> From an end-user perspective, there's a significant difference between "browser that will play the music and the videos and show me the PDFs" and "browser that will not do those things". Chromium, while open source, is really not a viable end-user browser on today's internet. I don't think so, because really it's a difference between "will show the pdf..." and "will launch a program to show the pdf." As a full time Chromium user, I've had frustrations twice--once trying to figure out why Netflix didn't work after I had heard it "now worked on linux," and the other with an app called mightytext that was doing a very stupid redirect loop forever in Chromium, but not Chrome. That's over the course of a year or so.