5 ms·
First, I'll note that plenty of people use Chrome without extensions. This issue wasn't a showstopper for any of them. Second, you cut out the rest of the comm
by fpgeek 12y ago
First, I'll note that plenty of people use Chrome without extensions. This issue wasn't a showstopper for any of them.
Second, you cut out the rest of the comment:
"If that causes great hardship for anyone and you want to do the work to figure out what's going on submit patches to fix it, I can provide pointers for where to start looking and code reviews for the patch."
Since that comment has anyone done anything other than updating their kernel and/or complaining? If not, why would the Chromium team think this issue was important?
- yuhong 12y agoI wonder if any distro's Chromium package had a patch.
- teraflop 12y agoI don't think the other half of that comment affects my point: that the Chrome team is declining to fix bugs that only manifest on older kernels, and hence it's reasonable to call those kernels "unsupported". I agree that it's the Chrome team's prerogative to decide that supporting those kernels is unimportant.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- vacri 12y agoSo you only care about problems if the user is a skilled developer, and then only if they're actively solving the bug (because skilled programmers are never involved in other projects eating their time...)?
- lrem 12y agoI'm pretty sure that's the exact audience they had in mind when opensourcing (note that closed-source Chrome is still available for Linux).